|
Neurolimal posted:The opposite of malice and harm isn't procedure. Trump was bad because his actions harmed people, not because he ignored decorum and proper channels. If your aim is to do good, it is in both your best interest and those of people your actions will affect, to make sure you dot your I's and cross your T's, so that your efforts cannot be undone easily. Again, we saw this with DACA — the Obama administration was super careful when crafting that program, and this bit Trump in the rear end in a big way because he thought he could ignore proper procedure and just undo it by fiat. As a result, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients today are still protected from deportation.
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It's unclear to me how much cause has to be shown to yank a conditional offer of federal employment. Iirc immigration judges (despite the name) are a perfectly normal justice department employee, subject to all the usual federal employment procedures and protections. And I’m sure they’ll only do good things in their jobs, being people Trump wanted there and all.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Trump didn't care about getting sued because he didn't care about governing. He only cared about causing immense harm and suffering on his enemies and people he perceived as subhuman. Biden should do it because Trump proved there's no downside to doing it. Even if you do get blocked by courts you get a free enemy to rile your base up about and an excuse for why you're not doing poo poo, it's a win win! Governing in that manner was proven correct, we have an imperial executive branch, that's just an objective political reality. One side fully acknowledges it and goes 'hell yea we do baby rip it and sip it what are you gonna do impeach me?' and the other pretends the thin curtain covering that fact is a real wall they can't cross
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:And I’m sure they’ll only do good things in their jobs, being people Trump wanted there and all. I'm sure ICE people will be fair and reasonable immigration authorities. It's like how cops make the best real judges and that's why that's where we get them from. What's that? From legal backgrounds and not enforcement? Oh my...
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:The GOP has been stacking the courts for quite a while, the Biden admin inviting lawsuits that are heard by Trump-appointed judges seems like a poor strategy. So you are saying the correct strategy in this case would be to ehm...-checks notes- c..confirm more Trump-nominated judges?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
Immigration court judges are not judges in the traditional sense (I don't think they're even "appointed", I think they're just "hired"). They are normal federal employees with the same rights of any federal employee. What you're suggesting to just go ahead and break are federal labor protections.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
I'm glad that the DHS camps are being emptied and people are being put in much more humane and kind HHS facilities. https://twitter.com/stevanzetti/status/1391039711507099654 https://twitter.com/stevanzetti/status/1391100596120338433 Uh oh! For real though this is loving dire, why is this not bigger news?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Immigration court judges are not judges in the traditional sense (I don't think they're even "appointed", I think they're just "hired"). They are normal federal employees with the same rights of any federal employee. So, does any of this matter? Was Trump a stain on this country's history and will his actions, born from cruelty and malice, mean the suffering and deaths of many -- or -- is it all just business as usual? Because overriding whatever protections are in place to oust these judges isn't going to uncork anything here: the next Trump (maybe even Trump himself), and the GOP in a broader sense, haven't and aren't going to pull punches for anything, much less the sake of "federal labor protections". If it's at all possible to ignore them, they will ignore (or repeal) them next time around. There's nothing to gain here by playing by the rules, because the other team has made it incredibly clear that they are totally unwilling to. You'd abide these judges for two reasons: it is all just business as usual, to both parties, and they don't actually give a poo poo about the people that are thrown into the woodchipper of our immigration system -- which to me seems pretty clear that it's the case. Honestly, does it get tiring carrying water for these people and this system? What do you lose by acknowledging that both sides have a hand in this?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Biden should do it because Trump proved there's no downside to doing it. Even if you do get blocked by courts you get a free enemy to rile your base up about and an excuse for why you're not doing poo poo, it's a win win! I don't see how you see it as a "win win" because Trump lost both the lawsuits in question, and the election. Sure, his actions riled up his base, but they also riled up Democrats, who first gained control of the House, then the Senate and the WH two years later. In other words, Trump's "imperial" executive style had disastrous consequences for the GOP. There is zero reason for Biden to repeat the same mistakes. Indeed, the only reason one would advocate for it is if they wanted Dems to lose in 2022 and Biden to lose in 2024. I wouldn't put that past some of the folks in this thread, but you, sexpig, should know better.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:So, does any of this matter? Was Trump a stain on this country's history and will his actions, born from cruelty and malice, mean the suffering and deaths of many -- or -- is it all just business as usual? Because overriding whatever protections are in place to oust these judges isn't going to uncork anything here: the next Trump (maybe even Trump himself), and the GOP in a broader sense, haven't and aren't going to pull punches for anything, much less the sake of "federal labor protections". If it's at all possible to ignore them, they will ignore (or repeal) them next time around. No it just gets tiring arguing with ostensible leftists who make up a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit to put labor rights in the wood chipper at the drop of a hat.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Hyperbolic bullshit? The drop of a hat? So this stuff is really just business as usual? This is weird rhetoric from someone who just a few months ago seemed to be convinced that Trump was a unique evil and needed to be stopped, and his immigration policy and administration were some of the worst and most egregious parts of what he'd done. At any rate my point is that to any extent the Biden administration can put "put labor rights in the wood chipper at the drop of a hat" won't start anything because the next GOP administration will do it regardless of what's happening today. If the Trump judges are as evil as everyone was claiming they were a few months ago (something I still believe), they should be ousted because this is a special circumstance. Wouldn't this be, quite literally, the harm reduction it was so important to vote blue for? Trump put hundreds of judges on the bench, and they should all be removed regardless if they're covered by whatever federal labor protections, because if those protections can be bypassed they will be bypassed in 2024/8/whatever
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Honestly, does it get tiring carrying water for these people and this system? What do you lose by acknowledging that both sides have a hand in this? Has anyone itt argued that Dems and the Biden admin are completely clean and bear no responsibility for the state of the US immigration and refugee systems? The present situation is the result of decades of both Republican and Democratic administrations pursuing a strategy of deterrence and enforcement rather than a humanitarian approach. The Trump admin very deliberately dialed up the cruelty to 11 but it's certainly fair to point out that the Obama and so far Biden admins haven't overhauled the system either. Dem admins have made small steps (Obama signed DACA as one example) but that's clearly not nearly enough. Finger-pointing on an internet forum does not result in any real-world change. Personally, yes, I have no problem saying the Biden admin is responsible because they're in office and have the power (and duty!) to address the issues. The acknowledgement you're asking for doesn't get us anywhere and I thought it was sort of implied anyway. Dante80 posted:So you are saying the correct strategy in this case would be to ehm...-checks notes- c..confirm more Trump-nominated judges? I'm not 100% clear on the process but these immigration judges aren't nominated and confirmed by Congress. They were already hired by Trump on the way out. As federal employees they have labor protections, if you fire them now it would be challenged in court on the basis they were fired for political reasons rather than cause. Don't forget there are hundreds of Trump-appointed immigration judges and I'll assume quite a few Obama/Bush appointees that we'd like to replace as well. Trying to blow up federal labor protections to fire 17 judges would very likely result in courts saying "you can't fire them for political reasons" while making it harder to replace the hundreds more. We could always, y'know, push for and pass comprehensive immigration reform that makes it far harder for judges to deny entry and circumvent the whole problem. One Weird Tricks like "just release all the children" or "ignore laws because the Trump admin got away with that and proved the President can do whatever they want conveniently ignoring the numerous times Trump was blocked by courts and Congress" are unserious answers to very serious problems immiserating tens/hundreds of thousands of migrants. edit: Pentecoastal Elites posted:At any rate my point is that to any extent the Biden administration can put "put labor rights in the wood chipper at the drop of a hat" won't start anything because the next GOP administration will do it regardless of what's happening today. If the Trump judges are as evil as everyone was claiming they were a few months ago (something I still believe), they should be ousted because this is a special circumstance. Wouldn't this be, quite literally, the harm reduction it was so important to vote blue for? advocating authoritarianism because if the Dems don't do it the GOP will is certainly A Take, I guess This sounds an awful lot like the setup to many/most authoritarian regimes in history. We must take undemocratic action to prevent the opposition from taking undemocratic action! If we don't install a dictator and crush them, they'll do the same to us! Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 17:46 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
Just because the GOP loves authoritarianism and tries to rule by imperial decrees does not mean Dems should do the same. “Dems should ignore labor laws because the GOP is gonna do that the moment they are back in power” is a very shoddy argument. The ends don’t in fact justify the means.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:“Dems should ignore labor laws because the GOP is gonna do that the moment they are back in power” is a very shoddy argument. The ends don’t in fact justify the means. So what does justify the means? It seems that if people were to take this approach to everything then it would end up with the idea that "the means justify themselves".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Just because the GOP loves authoritarianism and tries to rule by imperial decrees does not mean Dems should do the same. the executive branch is imperial, and republicans are going to do that the moment they're back in power anyway, these facts won't change no matter what Joe Biden does. We gain literally nothing by playing by rules nobody else does.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:advocating authoritarianism because if the Dems don't do it the GOP will is certainly A Take, I guess Are both sides ideologically and practically equal? How far would you need things to do before ignoring a set of labor laws in an exceptional case (which you call "advocating authoritarianism") is the morally correct thing to do? Would these judges have to be goose-stepping, sieg-heiling nazis? Would our hands still be tied here? If not, really just how far away, ideologically, are the GOP from nazism? I think it'd be good to take undemocratic action to remove nazis from power, personally. We even had a war about it, you may recall, which was certainly undemocratic in that we didn't take a vote of Germans before bombing Berlin. It's weird to be a leftist in a subforum of liberals arguing in favor of raw practicality and against ideological consistency. What in the world do the Democrats stand to gain by doing the "right thing"? It's happening one way or another, the voters don't give a poo poo, the donor class doesn't give a poo poo -- hell, if Biden came out tomorrow and told everyone he's making an unprecedented move in light of 1/6 and removing the Trump judges by whatever means, the vast majority of his base would be happy. Hell, I'd be happy. The only people that care about this are people who both can't see the forest for the trees (in that we've been diving headfirst into the authoritarianism you're so worried about for decades now and there's no brakes left to pull) and have some sort of deep, personal need to bean-count this poo poo that most normal people don't care about (op-ed writers, internet pedants). In short: sexpig by night posted:We gain literally nothing by playing by rules nobody else does.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:The ends don’t in fact justify the means. Hoo boy, people love trotting this phrase out without really understanding it. What it's supposed to be is that the ends don't *necessarily* justify the means, because quite often, the ends *do* justify the means. For example, defeating the nazis in WW2 required killing lots of people. Killing people is immoral. If you were to take the absolutist stance that the ends don't justify the means, you'd basically be arguing that we shouldn't have fought them and just let them have their way, despite the fact that far more people would have been killed. And yes, there are plenty of things the Allies did that I don't believe were justified by the end result. Or for a more simple example, stealing is wrong, but stealing food to feed starving people is good. In this case the ends justify the means. I personally believe that the means of breaking a few (arguably undemocratic) laws are justified by the ends of ending the state of cruelty and human misery at the border. Why do you *not* believe that?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
yes, yes nyt oped, but there's some short-term fix stuff that i find more interesting than "should we abolish federal labor protections to fire seventeen immigration judges, y/n" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/opinion/sunday/immigration-courts-trump-biden.html most notably quote:This is why another important fix is to stop a large number of those cases from being heard in the first place. The Justice Department has the power to immediately remove as many as 700,000 cases from the courts’ calendar, most of them for low-level immigration violations — people who have entered the country illegally, most from Mexico or Central America, or those who have overstayed a visa. Many of these cases are years old, or involve people who are likely to get a green card. Forcing judges to hear cases like these clutters the docket and makes it hard to focus on the small number of more serious cases, like those involving terrorism or national-security threats, or defendants facing aggravated felony charges. At the moment, barely 1 percent of all cases in the system fall into one of these categories. we already knew Garland could unilaterally undo Sessions' horrible actions and even do some reverse-sessionsing - forcing even trump hires to operate under better immigration rules. this seems like a thing he can legally do that would free up the immigration court backlog and be good for immigrants also, Biden blew up a Trump rule on immigrant/visa biometrics: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/uscis-announces-two-year-suspension-biometric-screening-requirement-h-4-l-2-and-e quote:U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be suspending biometric screening requirements for H-4, L-2, E-1, E-2, and E-3 dependent visa holders for two years beginning May 17, 2021. This suspension will automatically expire May 17, 2023, subject to affirmative extension or revocation by the USCIS Director. The suspension will apply to Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status applications that are pending on the effective date of the policy and have not yet received a biometric services appointment notice. It will also apply to newly filed applications received by USCIS after the effective date of the policy through the expiration date. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Ends justify the means is always a bad argument because it can be used to justify anything.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Ends justify the means is always a bad argument because it can be used to justify anything. Yes, that's only if you take the stance that the ends *always* justify the means, which nobody is arguing. Why do you believe that, in this case, the ends don't justify the means?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Ends justify the means is always a bad argument because it can be used to justify anything. Except nobody is saying 'ends always justify the means' it's just in this situation they do, unless you're taking the weird opposite tack of 'the ends NEVER justify the means' I don't see the point in doing this except to be a huge coward about trying to imply people who want the concentration camps empty are actually fascist enablers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:trying to imply people who want the concentration camps empty are actually fascist enablers.  p sure nobody here wants immigrants, kid or otherwise, in concentration camps p sure you're doing the thing you're complaining about
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Are both sides ideologically and practically equal? How far would you need things to do before ignoring a set of labor laws in an exceptional case (which you call "advocating authoritarianism") is the morally correct thing to do? Would these judges have to be goose-stepping, sieg-heiling nazis? Would our hands still be tied here? If not, really just how far away, ideologically, are the GOP from nazism? I think it'd be good to take undemocratic action to remove nazis from power, personally. We even had a war about it, you may recall, which was certainly undemocratic in that we didn't take a vote of Germans before bombing Berlin. It's incredible to me that you've managed to frame your fringe internet take as what "normal" people care about without a hint of self awareness. Rejection of the facist worldview you're endorsing here *is* an end. The harm reduction we had in mind voting for Dems wasn't being blue Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:58
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes, that's only if you take the stance that the ends *always* justify the means, which nobody is arguing. How can any means be wrong if you can claim that the results of those means will justify it? What means are not justified?
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:It's weird to be a leftist in a subforum of liberals arguing in favor of raw practicality and against ideological consistency. What in the world do the Democrats stand to gain by doing the "right thing"? It's happening one way or another, the voters don't give a poo poo, the donor class doesn't give a poo poo -- hell, if Biden came out tomorrow and told everyone he's making an unprecedented move in light of 1/6 and removing the Trump judges by whatever means, the vast majority of his base would be happy. Hell, I'd be happy. The only people that care about this are people who both can't see the forest for the trees (in that we've been diving headfirst into the authoritarianism you're so worried about for decades now and there's no brakes left to pull) and have some sort of deep, personal need to bean-count this poo poo that most normal people don't care about (op-ed writers, internet pedants). I believe there's a large body of academic work on the question of "should we take undemocratic/illegal steps to protect democracy" but I don't remotely have the background in political theory and history to pretend to discuss it other than to point out it's a major topic of discussion by itself. I'm not dismissing your viewpoint here, I'm acknowledging it as a much larger discussion that might even benefit from a thread of its own. The term is "militant democracy:" quote:Can a constitutional democracy act legally in an antidemocratic manner to combat threats to its existence? as just one quickly google'd example of some of the literature I'd disagree that Biden donors and voters wouldn't give a poo poo. About this one example, booting 17 Trump-hired immigration judges? Probably not very much. If Biden decided "gently caress it, Trump didn't play by the rules so I'm not going to either" and started acting illegally and outside of norms everywhere, he'd be blocked by courts and Congress (do you think the likes of Joe Manchin are going to play along?). It'd piss off a lot of donors and voters many of whom wanted a return to "normalcy" (even if that's naive) and would energize the Trump base. Hey, Biden is acting illegally, so what reason do we have to accept the results of the '22 and '24 elections? It strikes me as a rather accelerationist viewpoint. The system is already speeding towards authoritarianism, there's no way to hit the brakes, so it becomes a question of who can go authoritarian first and seize power. If the Dems don't take undemocratic/illegal action to defend what democracy remains, the GOP definitely will destroy what's left in a couple years. edit: 
Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
I in no way said that but the person I was replying to was using the same lazy 'ah but if breaking the nominal rules is okay now then what if it's okay in bad things' rhetoric used to halt progress by invoking some imagery that you know as well as I do is pretty clearly meant to be pretty dark.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I in no way said that but the person I was replying to was using the same lazy 'ah but if breaking the nominal rules is okay now then what if it's okay in bad things' rhetoric used to halt progress by invoking some imagery that you know as well as I do is pretty clearly meant to be pretty dark. Just be honest about the situation and the argument you're making. The Republicans have started down the road of ignoring the rule of law, but so far this has largely been restricted to ignoring norms, not outright legal prohibitions. We know this because they did things like issuing now-repealed executive orders to make firing federal employees easier and are trying to pass state laws to restrict voting. If they truly had entirely abandoned the rule of law they wouldn't bother passing laws, they would be firing the employees regardless of the legality and ignoring votes without any sort of legal pretext. What you're saying is "the horrific conditions facing immigrants are dire enough that the Democratic Party should further weaken the rule of law in this country by firing judges, even if the consequence is that it creates a precedent for Republicans to fire judges and federal employees they don't agree with [a step they have not taken so far]". If you want to make that argument I would be open to hearing it, because i'm sympathetic to it, but you first should acknowledge that further weakening the rule of law has consequences, and en masse firing federal employees is a step neither party has yet taken. The larger question -- which is probably outside the scope of this thread -- is what situation constitutes a "state of exception" in which the President should take illegal, undemocratic actions to protect the democratic state. (Also if you truly believe that the next Republican presidency will be the end of democracy, then you shouldn't be arguing for half-measures like "firing immigration judges", you should be arguing for things like "arresting Republicans and jailing them without trial, removing them from the ballot, deciding that the Republican party is illegal, and passing laws that prohibit rural Americans from voting." In the situation you seem to believe exists - that this is essentially the end of America, then firing judges to allow more immigrants into America is virtually worthless, because the next fascist Republican will just abuse their authority to illegally imprison, torture and deport these people. Have the courage of your convictions!) Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:How can any means be wrong if you can claim that the results of those means will justify it? What means are not justified? Yes, precisely. The reason "ends sometimes justify the means, depending on what those ends are" is also terrible is because it is subjective. The reason we have laws is because we don't want subjectivity when it comes to governance. We want a set of objective standards. Just because one party has been ignoring those standards (and then getting smacked by the judiciary) is not sufficient justification for the other party to do the same. And no, sexpig, we don't have an "imperial executive branch," as others have pointed out. Maybe you should stop repeating it, because repeating it over and over does not make it true. It just makes you look silly. If you want to see what an imperial executive branch looks like, there are several examples around the world that I can point at, such as China.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Now that I think about if it you truly believe we're four years from a fascist Republican dictatorship you should be hoping that the US admits as few immigrants as possible because each immigrant today will likely shortly face imprisonment and torture. You should also be actively trying to immigrate and convince others to immigrate, too, but that's probably best for another thread. It just seems very bizarre to on one hand argue that this is the end of the democracy in America, that one party has entirely abandoned the rule of law, while also wanting to usher more people into the country.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:Now that I think about if it you truly believe we're four years from a fascist Republican dictatorship you should be hoping that the US admits as few immigrants as possible because each immigrant today will likely shortly face imprisonment and torture. You should also be actively trying to immigrate and convince others to immigrate, too, but that's probably best for another thread. It just seems very bizarre to on one hand argue that this is the end of the democracy in America, that one party has entirely abandoned the rule of law, while also wanting to usher more people into the country. That's a dark take and an angle I hadn't really considered. But you're right, if we're less than four years from a Republican dictatorship our time would best be spent doing things like hoarding canned food and organizing Underground Railroad type networks to help minorities escape the country.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
You guys know the concept of an imperial executive branch being on the rise didn't start under Trump, right?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:That's a dark take and an angle I hadn't really considered. But you're right, if we're less than four years from a Republican dictatorship our time would best be spent doing things like hoarding canned food and organizing Underground Railroad type networks to help minorities escape the country. Or you could follow the reasoning that you need to stop it by taking action to prevent it now. No need to do this if you prevent the second term through good action right?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:You guys know the concept of an imperial executive branch being on the rise didn't start under Trump, right? "The imperial executive branch" is used in the context of other executive branches in American history, not in some absolute sense compared to other forms of government. Also, you didn't answer my earlier question: do you believe that the next Republican president will be the final end of democracy in America and usher in a new, fully fascist American government?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:You guys know the concept of an imperial executive branch being on the rise didn't start under Trump, right? If Trump’s threat is not special then you do believe the ends justify the means, with all the tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims that implies.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Or you could follow the reasoning that you need to stop it by taking action to prevent it now. No need to do this if you prevent the second term through good action right? Firing or not firing immigration judges is not going to be determinative in Biden getting a second term - the reason you fire them is because you believe it will help immigrants, and that helping immigrants is the moral thing to do. If you want to take actions that guarantee Biden winning a second term - and believe that this is important enough that you're willing to break the law to do so - then you should not be talking about meaningless half-measures like firing federal employees, you should be talking about imprisoning Republicans politicians and stripping Republican voters of their votes. If you legitimately believe that the next Republican presidency will be the last; the start of a fascist America where immigrants, amongst other groups, will be subjected to extrajudicial arrest and torture, then you should be advocating for actual solutions that will actually prevent this, and those solutions have nothing to do with immigration judges. The relevant metaphor here is that a time traveler visits you the day before the Titanic sinks and you're concerned about making sure that lower deck passengers have better access to lifeboats: great, but not going to do anything to stop the actual impending crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:"The imperial executive branch" is used in the context of other executive branches in American history, not in some absolute sense compared to other forms of government. Also, you didn't answer my earlier question: do you believe that the next Republican president will be the final end of democracy in America and usher in a new, fully fascist American government? No? I loving didn't even call Trump some unique threat to 'American democracy' unlike half the posters ITT, no I don't think Tom Cotton or whoever else they drag out to be Trump but a bit less vulgar (or just Trump again) is going to be some unique 'end of democracy'. You're just making up poo poo and going "DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?" Sarcastr0 posted:If Trump’s threat is not special then you do believe the ends justify the means, with all the tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims that implies. Can you post like a normal person and not a c-tier star wars character, what 'tyranny' am I supporting in the stance of 'yea the president shouldn't be inherently bound by the nomination lists of the past president, that's a stupid system' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:How can any means be wrong if you can claim that the results of those means will justify it? What means are not justified? The problem is that you're making the inverse claim, that the ends never justify the means, which is easily shown to be incorrect (I provided two examples in my previous post), and mischaracterizing my argument as saying that the ends always justify the means. I even provided an example of some means that I believed were not justified (the many war crimes that the Allies committed in WW2). Did you actually read anything that I posted? I'll say it again: I believe that Biden bending or breaking a few procedural laws is worth ending the human suffering on the border. Why do you disagree?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:No? I loving didn't even call Trump some unique threat to 'American democracy' unlike half the posters ITT, no I don't think Tom Cotton or whoever else they drag out to be Trump but a bit less vulgar (or just Trump again) is going to be some unique 'end of democracy'. You're just making up poo poo and going "DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?" OK, great! Then we probably both agree! What do you think the consequences would be if Democrats start firing federal employees? And if Republicans were happy to do so (and therefore there's no value in Democrats unilaterally respecting a rule of law), then why haven't they fired the many federal employees who stopped many of Trump's worst impulses? (Just to help, what everyone is asking you to do is provide a positive argument (and positive in the rhetorical sense, not in the "optimistic sense") of why the Democrats should do this, despite the consequences. I'm actually quite open to this argument, actually, because I think protecting immigrants is one of the most important duties and responsibilities of the presidency and outweighs federal protections for employees.) Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:OK, great! Then we probably both agree! What do you think the consequences would be if Democrats start firing federal employees? And if Republicans were happy to do so (and therefore there's no value in Democrats unilaterally respecting a rule of law), then why haven't they fired the many federal employees who stopped many of Trump's worst impulses? ...Because the people in this example are a bunch of ICE ghouls and other related types attached to enforcement rather than immigration rights supported by a DOJ that had open contempt for immigrants, and also, most importantly, by the DOJ of the guy who lost the loving election so it's absurd to rubber stamp them? I thought that was pretty clear. Also Republicans pretty well do a great job of pushing out, punishing, and outright purging federal employees who piss them off for far less valid reasons, not sure why you're acting like they don't.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
actually I'll just do it for you: the immigration apparatus that trump helped construct was so monstrously evil that biden has a moral responsibility to get rid of it, even if it means violating labor norms and federal employee protections, particularly because most of these immigrants are fleeing disastrous conditions largely created by the us in the first place. i recognize that this might create a dangerous precedent that later republican presidents can abuse, but the immediacy and extent of the current crisis justifies this action.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:16
|
|