|
Ah yes, you see, both sides carry equal fault for me chokeslamming that journalist. 
Insurrectum fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 3, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Rigel posted:
Isn't that the case with many laws - there's designed to target a protected group but the people writing them come up with a bullshit reason (  voter fraud) to pass something with a disproportionate impact...Trump just didn't have the patience do keep a straight face and not loving tweet out his racism, and thus his law will fail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Isn't that the case with many laws - there's designed to target a protected group but the people writing them come up with a bullshit reason ( yeah, and those laws can be struck down too if the impact is too high and the government's interest is implausible, too weak, or not really being met by the law. (eg the government's explained interest in the gay marriage bans was laughably absurd, but if we hypothetically had some kind of population crash and birthrate problem plus they could prove a gay marriage ban would encourage more hetero marriages and children, the courts may have blessed a gay marriage ban) In this case though, if the government's reasoning is "we're afraid thousands of people will be murdered by terrorists", then they can get away with a lot of disparate impact if the fear is at all plausible and they have any evidence. With most presidents the courts would go "gee that sounds terrifying. OK, we won't second guess you, so go ahead and protect us. Sorry muslims, looks like you are getting hit hard by this ban, but nothing we can do about it" Rigel fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
trumpsamerica.jpg And it also explains the mayo thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
I trust Trump too
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Rigel posted:yeah, and those laws can be struck down too if the impact is too high and the government's interest is implausible, too weak, or not really being met by the law. (eg the government's explained interest in the gay marriage bans was laughably absurd, but if we hypothetically had some kind of population crash and birthrate problem plus they could prove a gay marriage ban would encourage more hetero marriages and children, the courts may have blessed a gay marriage ban) Why have the lower courts hit this executive order so hard, then? Every ruling has flatly called it unconstitutional, right? Where would plausible latitude come from at this point? Is it just because supreme court justices are blatantly partisan in ways that federal judges are not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Why have the lower courts hit this executive order so hard, then? Every ruling has flatly called it unconstitutional, right? Where would plausible latitude come from at this point? Is it just because supreme court justices are blatantly partisan in ways that federal judges are not? Yeah that's it, people are worried
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
The premise of using past comments to define motive. There is no reason The President could not institute this ban in a vacuum, but he's on very public record to a.) ban muslims and b.) find a way to ban them legally. They are trying to argue that past comments and motive are immaterial and the ban is within the constitutional power of the president. So far, the courts haven't gotten past the first argument without ruling against the administration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I've heard that East of the Mississippi (I hope that is a neutral term), interstate rest stops have fast food restaurants and stuff? They exist along some of the Interstate toll roads like the Mass Turnpike or New York State Thruway which were built pre-Interstate and the states kept the rights to the toll plazas. Those plazas don't really exist in the more urban termini, but are in the more rural areas of the routes. So even if Trump were to take the NYS Thruway up state for some reason, he wouldn't have seen those rest plazas. The remaining stops are just basic 2 bathrooms, maybe vending machine, and green space rest areas. I know of one that I drive by in Connecticut if I travel down to NY that has Boy Scouts giving out coffee. glowing-fish posted:In fact, has Donald Trump ever had any record of being in a natural area? I mean, like most people from the East Coast, he probably doesn't even understand such a concept exists, and then on top of that, the idea of him coming up against something that is just nature, that isn't a social reality where he could stroke his ego, probably just doesn't compute. 
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Didn't the 4th circuit ruling basically say "this could plausibly be legal maybe, but past statements make intent obvious"? Or was it as more or less cut and dried constitutionality as the original 9th circuit ruling with the public statements bit just being a cherry on top?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:The problem with this discussion is that Ginos is only a thing in NH, MA, and CT, so most people reading this won't know what we're talking about. You already saw two posters thinking it was just a cutesy name you were giving to Papa Johns (which is, actually, trash). But you do me a big favor by saying your favorite pizza is Costco. Now anyone reading can judge the relative merits of our taste by comparison to Costco. Truth. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
only we have papa ginos? lol at people thinking it's papa johns it's way older.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Why have the lower courts hit this executive order so hard, then? Every ruling has flatly called it unconstitutional, right? Where would plausible latitude come from at this point? Is it just because supreme court justices are blatantly partisan in ways that federal judges are not? Not really. A few judges have concurred with a majority opinion saying its unconstitutional because the impact is too great, but most judges have been saying "this would normally be OK, except we know you are really doing this because of religion." The president is trying to explain that its not religious and Obama wouldn't have had a problem, but the courts are saying "nope, we heard you during the campaign, and we know you are lying to us". Thats amazing, you have to get to Trump levels of obvious hate to provoke the courts into doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Just saw this link shared on FB. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/02/26/reichstag-fire-manipulating-terror-to-end-democracy/ It's old I know, but this (and probably being three episodes into the new season of House of Cards, which seems to be what they are building towards) got me thinking about what the likely response from the III%ers would be to something like this. I feel like it might be extraordinarily naive to take them at their word that they would lead an uprising against usurping the constitution and not just that they just hated a black man in the White House. More broadly, say blatantly lovely Russian poo poo comes to light and/or jail/impeachment enters the realm of possibilities and Trump were to pull a Reichstag event that then pushed through terrible war powers and a severe erosion of US citizens civil rights. How would or could a coup like that work in a federalist system and a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands? I feel like California's response would be similar to their response to the pulling out of the Paris accords and not comply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PeterWSJ/status/871009240856616962
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
mynnna posted:Didn't the 4th circuit ruling basically say "this could plausibly be legal maybe, but past statements make intent obvious"? Or was it as more or less cut and dried constitutionality as the original 9th circuit ruling with the public statements bit just being a cherry on top? yep. The original 9th circuit ruling on the first EO was because it hilariously tried to ban green card holders. When Trump fixed that and issued the 2nd EO, then they fell back on, "ok, thats better but we still think you are lying, so no."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
it's kinda dumb the president can just ban entry from certain countries without any basis. they go "hey i don't wanna terrorists to come in" but then their ban is countries where zero terrorists have come from and they left the countries the terrorists actually came from and are also the largest sponsors of terrorism off the list. you should be able to block it just on those grounds because it's dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The premise of using past comments to define motive. It's such a disingenuous and obviously laughable argument it just boggle the mind. I know we all agree but a child could see the stupidity in this poo poo. e: Of course that applies to pretty much everything Trump related, yet still, here we are. RandomBlue fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's kinda dumb the president can just ban entry from certain countries without any basis. they go "hey i don't wanna terrorists to come in" but then their ban is countries where zero terrorists have come from and they left the countries the terrorists actually came from and are also the largest sponsors of terrorism off the list. you should be able to block it just on those grounds because it's dumb as hell. With a normal president who is rational, intelligent, and not an obvious racist, the president would basically tell the courts that he has secret information he can't share and they just need to trust him, and the courts would sign off on it. In Trump's case because of his history of campaigning on a muslim ban, they won't take his word for it, he'd have to prove it to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Insurrectum posted:Ah yes, you see, both sides carry equal fault for me chokeslamming that journalist. Since Gianforte the RWM has been flooded with articles that are basically variations on "I'm not touching you, you're touching me" and "why do you make me hit you?". https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/29/liberals-are-shocked-to-find-were-starting-to-hate-them-right-back-n2332712
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
*actively takes away the rights of everyone that isn't a straight white man, while also loving over anyone who isn't rich, while also destroying the earth, while also defending by far the dumbest president of all time, while also physically assaulting the press* why can't we all be civil???
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Discussion Quorum posted:Since Gianforte the RWM has been flooded with articles that are basically variations on "I'm not touching you, you're touching me" and "why do you make me hit you?". I don't really think anyone is shocked to find the right wing is mostly driven by hatred and spite, Mr. Article Writer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
catspleen posted:Just saw this link shared on FB. The oathkeeper and 3% crowd would love a reichstag event because they are literal fascists. They don't actually care about the constitution or America as it has really been, but venerate an imagined mythic past in which they would have gotten a better deal than they have now solely because of an explicitly racist social order. The second amendment is no protection against state power because American police have access to overwhelming military force and also the national guard. You need to just hope that the federal system holds and that nobody has confidence in Trump even if they would love to do a holocaust and make a fascist ethnostate (Sessions wants to do a holocaust and make an ethnostate). The thing about the nazis is that they were smart, or at least of normal intelligence, and they planned carefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:With a normal president who is rational, intelligent, and not an obvious racist, the president would basically tell the courts that he has secret information he can't share and they just need to trust him, and the courts would sign off on it. In Trump's case because of his history of campaigning on a muslim ban, they won't take his word for it, he'd have to prove it to them. The courts would request that secret information and review it, not just "trust" the administration. The Trump admin tried to say "we have secret info trust us" and the courts went "great, lets have the judge review the info since judges review secret info all the loving time." Strangely the Trump administration didn't want to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/871023810409058306quote:Nearly six months after Donald Trump was sworn into office, more than 200 protesters who gathered in Washington, D.C. to protest his inauguration are facing felony charges that carry sentences of 70 to 80 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:
The nazi high command was impossibly incompetent and its one of the more bizarre accidents of history that they became as significant as they did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
all thanks to one mentally deficient communist starting a fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The nazi high command was impossibly incompetent and its one of the more bizarre accidents of history that they became as significant as they did. Looks like we are repeating history then since it's looking like they are winning pretty handily with shoving protesters in jail, going to town on Jim Crow 2.0 while they beat up journalists with impunity. The message is pretty clear. Don't protest Trump or we will figure out a reason to destroy you. MAGA #freedom, etc,
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Publix deli This seems, uh, real bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/03/531088285/trump-s-approval-rate-decline-is-nothing-compared-to-other-presidents
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The nazi high command was impossibly incompetent and its one of the more bizarre accidents of history that they became as significant as they did. Don't forget that you also had factions like Canaris' Abwehr that actively worked against Hitler and the Nazis as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The nazi high command was impossibly incompetent and its one of the more bizarre accidents of history that they became as significant as they did. True, and they would still run circles around Trump and his band of circus clowns. And a big difference is that before coming to power the Nazis knew exactly what they were doing. That period between Hitler leaving jail after the Beer Hall Putsch and him being appointed Chancellor was full of some meticulously planned and organized strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:Truth. Yeah it's indicating they feel like they can go full fascist and have no fear of anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The nazi high command was impossibly incompetent and its one of the more bizarre accidents of history that they became as significant as they did. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3493762&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=901#post442986216  Hitler studies a scale model of his planned re-building of Linz, the future Cultural Capital of his reich.The skyline was to be dominated by a huge clock tower that would play a movement from Schubert's 6th every morning, and its gilded roof would be the first building to reflect the morning sun. Hitler was very concerned that the locals would be offended if the clock tower was taller than the tallest building in the city - the cathedral - and spent countless hours deciding the height of the tower. This was in February 1945.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's kinda dumb the president can just ban entry from certain countries without any basis. they go "hey i don't wanna terrorists to come in" but then their ban is countries where zero terrorists have come from and they left the countries the terrorists actually came from and are also the largest sponsors of terrorism off the list. you should be able to block it just on those grounds because it's dumb as hell. Like many other features of our government, the authors of the original law assumed the President would always be an intelligent statesman of sound judgment and good morals, or at least not a sleazy stupid conman whose senile brain has been pickling in fringe propaganda ever since a black guy was elected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah it's indicating they feel like they can go full fascist and have no fear of anything. The entire administration is basically burning down around them...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
There's nothing like German communists for everyone to "lesser of two evils" over, the nazis haven't stacked the courts, there's nothing like the stabbed in the back myth rallying former soldiers, etc Politicians are doing everything they can to distance themselves from trump without outright saying it and they're going to be slaughtered in 2018. The cities are almost exclusively anti-trump to the point you have states (that actually matter) openly defying him. Like for this to really be like pre hitler Germany you'd have open warfare in the street and of citie, and that guy in Portland who murdered two people would be getting acquitted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
gently caress, that's crazy. America might literally be a failed democracy now: 80 years for protesting the President.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:08
|
|