|
Bishyaler posted:Border agents just got a waiver to constitutional rights. By 'viable' I mean, you stand a reasonable chance of survival if you do it.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
BRJurgis posted:"We" can't seize power within these confines, "we" can't change hearts and minds without this radical rhetoric. I've been the bleeding heart hippy who's voted Democrat every election my whole life, why am I finding more purchase with rural conservative adjacent folks than with my supposed allies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 09:32
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:"More purchase" in what and how? I suppose what I was getting at is people who are inclined to dislike the dems are more likely to admit that neither party is willing or able to actually help people, at least in my experience. Whereas the (typically older and wealthier) reliable Democrat voters will say to my face "well we just need more people to vote for Dems/not be foul republicans, and here is some insignificant speech/promise"/gesture that gives me hope." All the while minimizing or utterly denying the failure and unsustainability of what we are faced with. Meanwhile crusty Jim doesn't watch the news much, and if you ask him to be more supportive of biden he'll laugh in your face. However, tell crusty Jim our system won't allow change and will never serve him, that the Republicans just want power and make people like him their bitch... tell him to give up on it and focus on building relationships with his neighbors and strength/skills to no longer need the material comforts provided by our systems... you son of a bitch, Jim's in. Edit: Anyway as long as we're forced into the two party democrat Republican framing we'll keep getting the results we've been getting. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Jun 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 12:32
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:I mean, he's right, in that progressives with some connection to reality know that "just shoot the people we hate" is a perfectly valid option for the fascists and not a viable option for anyone on the left. Was it Giffords that got shot by some right winger after Sarah Palin vomited a bunch of shooting themed rhetoric? That seems like decades ago now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:I suppose what I was getting at is people who are inclined to dislike the dems are more likely to admit that neither party is willing or able to actually help people, at least in my experience. Whereas the (typically older and wealthier) reliable Democrat voters will say to my face "well we just need more people to vote for Dems/not be foul republicans, and here is some insignificant speech/promise"/gesture that gives me hope." All the while minimizing or utterly denying the failure and unsustainability of what we are faced with. I mean if you don't have any investment in the prevailing system then abandoning it is obviously more attractive to you? And most people are ready to help their surrounding community. It's when you need to help people who you don't know, who don't look like you or share your moral outlook that you'll run into problems with rural conservative adjacent folk like Crusty Jim. And likewise your opinion would not find the same purchase if Crusty Jim has investment in it (like say, being a farmer and getting subsidies from that system).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
The border agents thing seems like something that could legitimately be solved by Congress. I can see enough republicans agreeing with "FEDERAL AGENTS should be able to be held accountable if they violate my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS." I mean they won't, but the probably could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Fun fact: this apparently applies to within 100 miles of any U.S border, which given how U.S cities are concentrated means border patrol can do whatever they want to roughly 60% of the population does that include coastline or land borders only
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:does that include coastline or land borders only Coastline, which is how you get to the 60% population figure. https://twitter.com/LolOverruled/status/1534592196841725956?s=20&t=kbJo6Yo9oPsIg91mMpvk4w
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
Doesn't the border patrol also consider ports of entry (such as airports) included? There by extending that 100 mile radius to every inch of the country?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Border agents just got a waiver to constitutional rights. Rather than anything about border agents specifically, it looks more like the majority is intent on rolling back Bivens, the case which allows courts to award damages for Fourth Amendment breaches even if there's no legislation specifically allowing for that. But there isn't clear agreement among the conservative justices for overturning Bivens altogether, so they settled on a compromise of limiting its applicability (this time on issues that affect "national security", such as border policing). It draws significantly on Hernandez v Mesa for precedent, and it seems like Hernandez foreshadows the current ruling quite well - the court putting a new limitation on Bivens by suggesting that border enforcement is better policed by Congress rather than the courts, with one or two justices hinting that they'd like to overturn Bivens entirely. As for the actual facts of the case, I just laugh at it, because both parties to the lawsuit loving suck. Robert Boule, whose inn sat on the US-Canada border, was taking payments to smuggle people across the border...but he was also a paid informant for ICE and CBP, taking money in exchange for reporting some of his clients to border enforcement. Erik Egbert, a CBP agent, got suspicious about one of Boule's tips and turned up uninvited to the inn, and then shoved Boule and knocked him down when Boule tried to block his entry to the inn. Afterwards, Boule filed a complaint about Egbert, and Egbert retaliated by calling up the IRS and convincing them to audit Boule. Legally and constitutionally, Egbert's conduct is far more alarming. But I just find it so loving hard to summon up any sympathy for this piece of poo poo: quote:Ever the entrepreneur, Boule saw his relationship with Border Patrol as a business opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Now that I'm back from my 18-hour probe for quoting someone who was quoting someone who was posting about posters, Kimmel had a guest last night that is somehow even worse at his job than Kimmel is at his: https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/1534745624851099649?cxt=HHwWgsCt3fXAwcwqAAAA Surprisingly, Kimmel went pretty hard on Biden, who says he doesn't want to issue an executive order to save children's lives because that would be something that Trump would do. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) cat botherer fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Now that I'm back from my 18-hour probe for quoting someone who was quoting someone who was posting about posters, Kimmel had a guest last night that is somehow even worse at his job than Kimmel is at his: I don't understand how any person with a shred of sympathy or empathy couldn't scream "NINETEEN loving DEAD KIDS, JOE!" after that answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
It really is astonishing how much people can believe in a system that does active harm over trying to change it in case things got worse than they are now. Simple entropy implies that decay of institutions is inevitable, so why not change it? It's even weirder to see politicians, people with power and influence just sort of shrug their shoulders and say that they can do nothing. If that is true then what use are you? What is your purpose if not to do good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It really is astonishing how much people can believe in a system that does active harm over trying to change it in case things got worse than they are now. Simple entropy implies that decay of institutions is inevitable, so why not change it? Their purpose is to stand there and look Presidential. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
The career politicians standing around and saying ‘sorry, nothing can be good, ever’ is how you get people like Trump elected. Because for all of Trump’s bullshit he actually tried (and sometimes succeeded) in doing what he told his base he was going to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
TheSpartacus posted:Doesn't the border patrol also consider ports of entry (such as airports) included? There by extending that 100 mile radius to every inch of the country? It would have to be international airports, which are in major cities, so not most of the country geographically but most of the population. Edit: although that would already be true if it was just the border I think. Starks fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Now that I'm back from my 18-hour probe for quoting someone who was quoting someone who was posting about posters, Kimmel had a guest last night that is somehow even worse at his job than Kimmel is at his: That's not what he said. quote:Biden: The last time we had major legislative changes on gun laws was when I passed the assault weapons ban. I was the guy who sponsored that and got it passed. We limited the number of bullets that can be in a magazine and expanded background checks. And all sorts of other things. When we did that, crime went down. Gun crime dropped off. But, we could only get it passed for 10 years. During the Bush administration, they let it lapse. We didn't have the votes. And gun crime went back up right after. So, there is a direct correlation between the kinds of weapons that can be had and... look I met with all the kids and teachers in Uvalde, Texas and I stayed with them for about four hours. And the stories and the pain they told me... Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's not what he said. So in response to Kimmel asking how to work with Republicans who don't want to pass gun control legislation, Joe Biden wants to send them to jail? Am I parsing it correctly in that he's calling for his political adversaries to be jailed? Is there another way I should be reading that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:So in response to Kimmel asking how to work with Republicans who don't want to pass gun control legislation, Joe Biden wants to send them to jail? He was making a monopoly reference because Kimmel brought it up. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:So in response to Kimmel asking how to work with Republicans who don't want to pass gun control legislation, Joe Biden wants to send them to jail?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's not what he said. quote:I don't want to emulate Trump's abuse of the constitution. Look, I often get the question, "The Republicans don't play square, why do you? Well, guess what? If we do everything they do, then our democracy is in jeopardy. Biden doesn't want to take the action he could take on gun control because effectively using the powers of the executive branch is some wishy-washy "abuse of the constitution." Of course Biden is going to frame this much more charitably than I do, because Biden is the one doing it - however, the subtext on what matters more (a nebulous idea of not violating norms which are thoroughly broken vs. children's lives) is quite clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He was making a monopoly reference because Kimmel brought it up. Timeless Appeal posted:He's making a lame Monopoly joke to avoid answering the question. Yes, I understood the reference. Help me translate the metaphor then - Jail:Monopoly::????:Congress Solve for ????
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Nowhere did I imply that was a quote - sorry, I thought that it would be exceedingly obvious to everyone reading that it was a rhetorical flourish. I'll try to stick to being painfully literal from now own - after all, emotions and feeling don't really exist and we should never look for underlying subtext in what our liberal politicians say. It was a mostly lame answer and he dodged the final question, but "I've done everything I can executively and we're looking for more to do executively. I've already issued many executive orders" is very different from "I won't issue any executive orders because that is what Trump would do." Lib and let die posted:Yes, I understood the reference. He didn't have a good answer for how to get Republicans to stop obstructing, so he just thought on his feet to make a reference to the thing Kimmel just said to avoid giving an answer. That is it. He was making a joke to dodge the question because he has no good answer. He wasn't announcing an upcoming pogrom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
I think Biden just literally cannot process that these aren't the Republicans from before most of us were born.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It was a mostly lame answer and he dodged the final question, but "I've done everything I can executively and we're looking for more to do executively. I've already issued many executive orders" is very different from "I won't issue any executive orders because that is what Trump would do."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I think Biden just literally cannot process that these aren't the Republicans from before most of us were born. His answer to the literal first question of the interview is: quote:People need to realize, this ain't your grandfather's Republican party. This is a MAGA party, this is a very different Republican party. So, he does realize it. But, when asked how to deal with that his answer is: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Speaking of jail: might have been nice if a few bankers went to jail in 2008 when you were VP, Joe, rather than appoint them to your cabinet. Maybe send some of 1/6 insurrectionist supporters in our government there while we're at it. I'll be over here holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yes, I understood the reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:The point that Kimmel and (embarassingly) myself are making is that he's bullshitting around the central question and doing the standard Dem misdirection. Biden has the power to do more, despite what he claims - the Trump administration proved that. But he isn't. That's a fair characterization of it. You should have said that. But, it sounded weird that you said he was opposed to issuing any executive orders, because we already know he has. So, that was why I listened to it because it sounded like a strange thing to say. Because he didn't say that. Most people aren't going to listen and take the summary for granted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Ah, so, he didn't say that. And if he did, it wasn't that bad. And even if it is a bad look, it's not that big a deal. It was Kimmel's fault for giving him a bad metaphor. And you know, he's kind of old and a little out of touch, so he didn't mean it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Ah, so, he didn't say that. And if he did, it wasn't that bad. And even if it is a bad look, it's not that big a deal. It was Kimmel's fault for giving him a bad metaphor. And you know, he's kind of old and a little out of touch, so he didn't mean it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Ah, so, he didn't say that. And if he did, it wasn't that bad. And even if it is a bad look, it's not that big a deal. It was Kimmel's fault for giving him a bad metaphor. And you know, he's kind of old and a little out of touch, so he didn't mean it. I would actually be pretty excited if he was committing live on TV to start seriously prosecuting things and making political moves against the Republicans to actually save lives. But, it was obvious that he was not and it was a monopoly reference. I'm still confused about what you think he was really saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:But, it sounded weird that you said he was opposed to issuing any executive orders, because we already know he has. That's not what the poster said. cat botherer posted:Surprisingly, Kimmel went pretty hard on Biden, who says he doesn't want to issue an executive order to save children's lives because that would be something that Trump would do. Cat botherer is talking about a specific executive order, not that Biden is opposed to issuing "any" executive orders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That's not what the poster said. They explicitly are talking about any executive order in the interview. Biden brings up the ones he already did and Kimmel says oh and then asks him about what they can do with congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I would actually be pretty excited if he was committing live on TV to start seriously prosecuting things and making political moves against the Republicans to actually save lives. But, it was obvious that he was not and it was a monopoly reference. Considering the number of promises that Biden has made on live TV and not kept, I wouldn't get overly excited about that either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Considering the number of promises that Biden has made on live TV and not kept, I wouldn't get overly excited about that either. Fair point. The key would be to get Biden to promise a reign of terror on TV, then for his Press Secretary to make a dismissive joke about a reign of terror at a press conference. That seems to historically be the quickest way for executive action to happen in the Biden admin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The career politicians standing around and saying ‘sorry, nothing can be good, ever’ is how you get people like Trump elected. Because for all of Trump’s bullshit he actually tried (and sometimes succeeded) in doing what he told his base he was going to do. Democrats tried to make hay out it by calling Trump a "strongman" but strength & initiative are what people look to for in... strong leadership. I understand why elected Democrats pretend that they need compliant supermajorities in Congress to do anything, but I don't think it serves them electorally but rather paves the way for the "strongmen" to take office. This leaning in to political impotence is a fairly new trend; Obama got away with it because of his charisma & rhetoric, but that was a decade and a half ago, and the current times no longer are kind to the sort of split-the-difference, both-sides-are-valued, Reagan-had-some-good-ideas schtick that worked for him. I'm not saying we need false bravado or machismo; I'm saying that a political framework that was useful during a different time is useless now. In other words, Josef bugman posted:It really is astonishing how much people can believe in a system that does active harm over trying to change it in case things got worse than they are now. Simple entropy implies that decay of institutions is inevitable, so why not change it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Michigan's GOP primary is getting whittled down very quickly... https://twitter.com/EricLloyd/status/1534913156585250817 https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1534913009998495744 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1534914432773632002
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
I'm not speaking for anyone else and the question wasn't directed at me but I think he was going for an awkward callback to Jimmy's Monopoly set up and the "joke" didn't land. I'm sure RWM is going to go crazy with it and push the whole "Biden says lock up Republicans!" angle that some people here are parsing out similarly. If Joe Biden was serious about jailing Republicans, he's had decades of opportunities to go after real ones who deserve it but we all know that the people Biden likes jailing the most are young black males. He's been very clear that he wants to WORK WITH Republicans. Because they can be so reasonable, you see. Also, the whole "that's what Trump would do so I won't do that" is loving stupid because it doesn't matter if Trump occasionally did something good or decent and you want to continue it. I think we'd have gotten the full $2000 if Donald had won for one thing. And Biden doesn't seem to have a loving problem doing what Trump did on the border or wanting to pour money into police departments so he can gently caress right off with that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:But, it sounded weird that you said he was opposed to issuing any executive orders, because we already know he has. Why do you keep distorting what posters have said in this thread, and then tell them what they should have said instead of what you say they said? It's disingenuous, and dishonest, and looks like an attempt to throw off the conversation by red-herring distraction. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 16:11
|
|