USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

«‹›310 »

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

They'll just run the AP stories through an AI text obfuscator and publish them that way

# ? Mar 19, 2024 18:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 12:09

Staluigi: Jun 22, 2021

me: this is just an ap story "sandstorms hit new mexico" that you used mass synonym swap on

kristen: no, that's ridiculous

me: ok well then tell me more about these "haboobs betide unused mexico"

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:24

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Is Chris Geidner a reliable source about the Supreme Court? because he just posted the SCOTUS gave the go ahead to Texas migrant law.

Here's an additional source

https://twitter.com/business/status/1770153409271751079

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:30

mutata: Mar 1, 2003

Supreme Court is a partisan organization now, so no shocker there. Bet even if the left took the House and kept the Senate and the presidency they would still do absolutely nothing to fix the court, lol.

mutata fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 19, 2024

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:42

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Nonsense posted:

Is Chris Geidner a reliable source about the Supreme Court? because he just posted the SCOTUS gave the go ahead to Texas migrant law.

Here's an additional source

https://twitter.com/business/status/1770153409271751079

Yeah. SCOTUS is letting Texas move ahead for now. District court entered a preliminary injunction, but the 5th Circuit CoA blocked that injunction pending an appeal. The conservatives on SCOTUS are letting it run with Barrett and Kavanaugh saying that the appeal matter has to be heard.

SCOTUS might eventually overrule the Texas law, but the consevatives are not particularly bothered by it.

The Texas law is a horrible waste of time and this is another reminder of lost decades due to the GOP�s ability to pack the judiciary full of reactionaries.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:44

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

Eric Cantonese posted:

Yeah. SCOTUS is letting Texas move ahead for now. District court entered a preliminary injunction(l, but the 5th Circuit CoA blocked that injunction pending an appeal. The conservatives on SCOTUS are letting it run with Barrett and Kavanaugh saying that the appeal matter has to be heard.

The Texas law is a horrible waste of time and this is another reminder of lost decades due to the GOP�s ability to pack the judiciary full of reactionaries.

What the gently caress even is the supremacy clause, right.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:45

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Xiahou Dun posted:

What the gently caress even is the supremacy clause, right.

They have proven that they abhor federalism unless it serves their interests

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:54

Pantaloon Pontiff: Jun 25, 2023

mutata posted:

Supreme Court is a partisan organization now, so no shocker there. Bet even if the left took the House and kept the Senate and the presidency they would still do absolutely nothing to fix the court, lol.

"The left" doesn't have the Senate or presidency unless you're using a really skewed definition of 'left'. Even if you consider Biden a leftist because his labor policy isn't entirely bad, numerous Democratic senators certainly don't qualify as 'left', most obviously Manchin. There aren't even 50 votes in the Senate for removing the filibuster, there certainly aren't 50 votes for radically altering the Supreme Court - something even a president as popular as FDR couldn't pull off.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:42

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Nonsense posted:

Is Chris Geidner a reliable source about the Supreme Court? because he just posted the SCOTUS gave the go ahead to Texas migrant law.

Here's an additional source

https://twitter.com/business/status/1770153409271751079

"SCOTUS gave the go-ahead" is a substantial exaggeration, I'd say. It's true that the immediate impact of this specific ruling is that Texas is able to start enforcing that law. However, that change in status is extremely temporary, because the order that the Supreme Court was being asked to overturn was a very short-term order.

Basically, the Supreme Court is not ruling on the law itself, nor is it even ruling on an injunction on enforcing the law. It's ruling on the validity of a temporary stay of the injunction on enforcing the law. And while the overall majority didn't bother to explain their reasoning in the ruling, ACB and Kavanaugh issued a concurrence which basically sums up as "this is a super-temporary short-term stay while the 5th Circuit deliberates whether to maintain the injunction or not, so let's wait till the 5th Circuit makes an actual decision on the injunction before making it the Supreme Court's business", followed by a bunch of veiled threats to the 5th Circuit that they'd better stop dragging their feet with this temporary stay and make an actual decision on the injunction already. Either way, this is going right back to the Supreme Court after the 5th Circuit makes an actual ruling on the injunction - and if the 5th Circuit doesn't rule on it soon, SCOTUS will take it back anyway.

Granted, even if this status quo only holds for another week or two, it's not exactly a good sign that the court seems unconcerned about the impact of letting Texas go hog wild for a couple of weeks. Yeah, it makes sense that they're annoyed about an administrative stay being appealed up to them like this, a thing that doesn't normally happen, but it's an extraordinary circumstance that's entirely the result of Texas and the 5th Circuit loving around like this.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:54

koolkal: Oct 21, 2008; this thread maybe doesnt have room for 2 green xbox one avs

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/havana-syndrome-brain-studies-nih.html

quote:

New Studies Find No Evidence of Brain Injury in Havana Syndrome Cases
The findings from the National Institutes of Health are at odds with previous research that looked into the mysterious health incidents experienced by U.S. diplomats and spies.

New studies by the National Institutes of Health failed to find evidence of brain injury in scans or blood markers of the diplomats and spies who suffered symptoms of Havana syndrome, bolstering the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies about the strange health incidents.

Spy agencies have concluded that the debilitating symptoms associated with Havana syndrome, including dizziness and migraines, are not the work of a hostile foreign power. They have not identified a weapon or device that caused the injuries, and intelligence analysts now believe the symptoms are most likely explained by environmental factors, existing medical conditions or stress.

The lead scientist on one of the two new studies said that while the study was not designed to find a cause, the findings were consistent with those determinations.

The authors said the studies are at odds with findings from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, who found differences in brain scans of people with Havana syndrome symptoms and a control group

Dr. David Relman, a prominent scientist who has had access to the classified files involving the cases and representatives of people suffering from Havana syndrome, said the new studies were flawed. Many brain injuries are difficult to detect with scans or blood markers, he said. He added that the findings do not dispute that an external force, like a directed energy device, could have injured the current and former government workers.

The studies were published in The Journal of the American Medical Association on Monday alongside an editorial by Dr. Relman that was critical of the findings.
The incidents began to occur in greater concentrations at the end of 2016 and in 2017 in Havana and later in China, Austria and elsewhere. The Biden administration took office in 2021 promising to improve health care for diplomats and spies suffering from the symptoms and vowing to get to the bottom of what was causing them.

Studies by the University of Pennsylvania in 2018 and 2019 suggested that people affected by the syndrome had possible brain injuries that were different from typical concussion injuries or other traumatic brain injuries.

The N.I.H. studies looked at a different group of people, with less than a third of the cases overlapping. Dr. Leighton Chan, the acting chief scientific officer for the N.I.H. Clinical Center and the lead author of one of the studies, said that of the 86 participants, 24 cases were from Cuba, six from China, 17 from Vienna, nine from around the United States and 30 from other locations.

While examining the brain scans, the researchers found no significant differences with the control group.

In a news conference discussing the results before their public release, the N.I.H. scientists said their scans, done in a research setting, were more precise than the scans produced primarily in clinical settings during earlier studies. They also said the control group was more closely matched to the study participants, improving the study�s rigor.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania said the two studies were �apples to oranges� comparisons because they looked at different groups of patients, and the N.I.H. study was not designed to replicate theirs.

The N.I.H. scientists said they did not diagnose the patients with traumatic brain injuries or concussions. The diagnoses they offered instead, all so-called �functional neurologic disorders,� are often caused by stress.

The studies did not rule out a potential external cause for Havana syndrome symptoms. But if one was not involved, Dr. Chan said, stress �may explain more of our findings.�

�It is important to note that individuals with functional neurological disorders of any cause have symptoms that are real, distressing and very difficult to treat,� Dr. Chan said.

The N.I.H. diagnosis angered several people with Havana syndrome symptoms who said it was insulting and misguided because it was tantamount to calling their symptoms psychosomatic or the result of mass hysteria.

Dr. Relman, who was among the leaders of an experts panel established by the intelligence agencies and another by the National Academy of Sciences, said the work of those groups had found that the symptoms of some of the affected government workers could not have been caused by stress or psychosocial factors alone.

The N.I.H. studies looked at a large group of people who reported diverse symptoms, rather than zeroing in on overseas cases where additional evidence shows something strange could have been going on, Dr. Relman said. In those cases, a concealable device, capable of delivering directed energy in a targeted way, could have been responsible.

�To lump all these cases together in the way they did is simply asking for trouble,� Dr. Relman said.

Mark Zaid, a lawyer for several people with Havana syndrome symptoms, said many current and former officials treated at N.I.H. were upset that they were not briefed on the study before it came out. Mr. Zaid said some patients were told that they had to participate in the study to receive treatment from the government for their symptoms. Mr. Zaid said that had raised ethical questions about the patients� consent.

Dr. Chan disputed that and said that the people who participated did so willingly and could have left the study at any time.

But Mr. Zaid said he feared that the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies would improperly use the study to bolster their findings that they could not determine an external cause for Havana syndrome cases.

�The concern is that intelligence community is going to weaponize this study to show that the absence of evidence is evidence,� Mr. Zaid said. �And it is not.�

TLDR: New NIH study finds no difference in Havana Syndrome patients brains vs. a control group.

Anyway I expect to continue hearing about the secret Cuban brain plancha for many years to come

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:55

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Obviously it's a new secret technology that can cause brain damage without causing brain damage

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:57

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/davidfolkenflik/status/1770109731996045314

Gannet owns dozens of major dailies, they will not be able to replicate AP coverage in house. They will just not have those stories anymore. It's hard for me to imagine publishing a major daily without AP stories, especially foreign bureaus.

Eh, while I don't think this will result in an improved media landscape, there's a silver lining in that the AP kind of sucks

Emily Wilder�s Firing Is No Surprise: AP Has Always Been Right-Wing

theintercept.com - Tue, 25 May 2021 posted:

The Associated Press
has received an enormous amount of criticism, including from its own staffers,�for firing Emily Wilder, 22, after hiring her as a�news associate just 17 days before. According to AP, Wilder was let go for �violations of AP�s social media policy.� AP�s action was clearly in response to a right-wing pressure campaign targeting Wilder for her activism in college supporting Palestinian rights.

Though appalling, however,�none of this should be a surprise. AP has been notably conservative since its founding in 1846, with a long history of bowing to the demands of the powerful � with its many talented journalists often forced to fight its management to get the news out. While other wire services such as United Press International and Reuters have not always covered themselves in glory, AP�s history demonstrates significantly�more bias.

AP has long been one of the most important news organizations in the world. A nonprofit cooperative with over�1,000 member papers, it produces 2,000 stories per day, with its reporting often the main or only coverage of many stories. According to AP itself, over half the world�s population regularly sees its work. Mahatma Gandhi�once joked, �When I get to the Hereafter and stand at the Golden Gate, the first person I shall meet will be a correspondent of the Associated Press.�

That�s why it�s crucial to understand AP�s perspective. It�s arguably baked into its DNA: AP was created by Moses Yale Beach, the publisher of the New York Sun, who arranged for five New York newspapers including the Sun to share the cost of covering the Mexican-American War. In retrospect, the war was a straight-up theft of Mexican territory, including all of California, by the U.S. It was justified by shameless deceit by President James K. Polk, as both Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant accurately said. Yet it was covered by AP as the fulfillment of America�s manifest destiny, reflecting Beach�s fervent belief�that�the U.S. should seize as much territory as possible. Beach even traveled to Mexico as an agent of the U.S. government, using a false British passport, in an attempt to undermine the Mexican war effort. This would not be seen today as a stellar example of media objectivity.

This general point of view continued with AP�s coverage of the�wars between Indigenous people�and the federal government after the U.S. Civil War. When AP correspondent Mark Kellogg left to cover the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876, his final dispatch read, �By the time this reaches you we would have met and fought the red devils, with what result remains to be seen. I go with Custer and will be there at the death.� The phrase �at the death� did not mean that Kellogg expected that he and Custer would die. On the contrary, it�s language borrowed from fox hunting that means being present when the animals are run to ground and killed. Instead, to Kellogg�s surprise, both he and Custer died during the fray.

As union organizing and worker revolts burgeoned in the early 1900s, AP became notorious among progressives for its reactionary coverage. After a huge 1913 mine worker strike in West Virginia, the socialist magazine The Masses pointed out that AP�s local representative was a member of a military tribunal judging the strikers. This was accompanied by a cartoon depicting AP�s president dripping poison into a reservoir labeled �The News,� filling it with �lies,� �suppressed facts,� and �slander.� In response, AP managed to have the editor of The Masses arrested for criminal libel.

AP�s slant during this period is extensively documented in �The Brass Check,� a 1919 book by the famed muckraker Upton Sinclair. A study of the American press, �The Brass Check� was once almost as famous as �The Jungle,� Sinclair�s novel�about the meatpacking industry. In it Sinclair writes, �By far the greater part of the news which the American people absorb about the outside world comes through the Associated Press � There is no more important question to be considered by the American people than the question, Is the Associated Press fair? Does it transmit the news?�

Sinclair goes into great detail about AP�s coverage of one incident during the large-scale 1913-1914 strike in Colorado�s coal fields that led to the notorious Ludlow Massacre, in which 21 people were killed, including not just miners but their wives and children. President Woodrow Wilson had sent a telegram to Colorado�s governor demanding to know why he hadn�t taken action to settle the strike. The governor wrote back that �a committee on mediation on the present strike has been provided for and appointed,� and Wilson accepted this as sufficient. But the governor was lying to Wilson: No such committee existed. Sinclair repeatedly attempted to get AP to cover this.�The organization�explicitly refused.

quote:
�There is no more important question to be considered by the American people than the question, Is the Associated Press fair? Does it transmit the news?�

Sinclair was later arrested during a silent vigil in New York City for the Ludlow victims. AP falsely reported that Sinclair�s wife had been arrested with him and then refused to correct it. His wife�s right-wing father saw the story and threatened to disinherit her.

AP�s conservatism continued�for the rest of the century. Seymour Hersh, who worked for AP from 1962 to 1967, later said editors there were �timid on Vietnam� and that he could not have written his 1970 expos� of the My Lai Massacre for the wire service. In 1984, at a time of great fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan �joked� before a radio address that �I�m pleased to tell you today that I�ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.�An AP reporter filed an article on this, but editors didn�t publish it � until other news outlets ran the story. That same year, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger asked AP not to run�what it knew about the launch of a military satellite. AP happily obeyed.

But probably the most egregious behavior by AP during this time involved its coverage of the U.S.-backed Contras, who�were attempting to overthrow Nicaragua�s Sandinista government. Two AP reporters, Robert Parry and Brian Barger, worked for nine months on a story about the involvement of Contra leaders in cocaine smuggling. After what Barger later described as �excruciating� editing, AP killed the article. It only saw the light of day thanks to strange happenstance, when an editor on the AP Spanish language wire saw it in the computer system, didn�t realize it had been spiked, and ran it in translation. It was later reported that AP�s Washington bureau chief was regularly meeting during this period with Oliver North, then a staffer on Reagan�s National Security Council, who was well aware of the Contras� drug running�and was doing everything possible to cover it up. Parry and Barger both later quit AP in frustration.

AP�s more recent performance has been much the same. Domestically it often espouses standard right-wing economic nostrums proven wrong by history: In 2008, AP said�presidential candidate Barack Obama wasn�t being honest about �the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.� In reality, Obama�s key mistake would be�not pushing Congress to spend�enough money to bolster the economy. When Eric Garner was killed by New York police, AP gave full-throated voice to the perspective of the New York Police Department, beginning an article by stating, �Garner was overweight and in poor health. � When police came to arrest him, he resisted. And if he could repeatedly say, �I can�t breathe,� it means he could breathe.�

In its overseas coverage, AP often appears still stuck in the Cold War. In 2009, a group of Latin American scholars bought a full-page ad in the Columbia Journalism Review to point out two glaring factual misrepresentations by AP in its Venezuela coverage. According to AP, the country�s then-president Hugo Ch�vez had claimed that an attack on a synagogue �might have been carried out by Jews eager to portray his government as anti-Semitic.� Ch�vez had never said this and in fact had strongly condemned the attack. Ch�vez also had not, as AP claimed, urged �world leaders to back [Colombia�s FARC�s] armed struggle.� In 2013, after Ch�vez died, AP criticized him for investing �Venezuela�s oil wealth into social programs including state-run food markets, cash benefits for poor families, free health clinics and education programs.� The results from this, AP bizarrely wrote, were �meager compared with the spectacular construction projects that oil riches spurred in glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world�s tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi.�

Seen in this 175 year-long context, it makes perfect sense that AP would immediately get rid of Wilder at the first sign of trouble.�AP has sometimes produced great journalism, but often�despite rather than because of its natural inclinations. Time and again, the organization has rushed to propitiate the powers that be � even when it comes at their reporters� expense.

Here's another from Politico about the topic: Opinion | The Real Problem With the AP�s Firing of Emily Wilder (https://www.politico.com)

# ? Mar 19, 2024 21:01

mutata: Mar 1, 2003

Pantaloon Pontiff posted:

"The left" doesn't have the Senate or presidency unless you're using a really skewed definition of 'left'. Even if you consider Biden a leftist because his labor policy isn't entirely bad, numerous Democratic senators certainly don't qualify as 'left', most obviously Manchin. There aren't even 50 votes in the Senate for removing the filibuster, there certainly aren't 50 votes for radically altering the Supreme Court - something even a president as popular as FDR couldn't pull off.

Yes, obviously. Hence me saying that they'll never unfuck the Court.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 21:06

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

mutata posted:

Yes, obviously. Hence me saying that they'll never unfuck the Court.

Being the party with the power of appointment for 20 out of 24 years (like 1968-1992) or at least 28 out of 40 (like 1952-1992) would be a pretty big start.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 22:14

AlternateNu: May 5, 2005; ドーナツダメ！

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

it's often unspoken, but this rational is why i'm confident that the national affordability crisis will continue unless and until a seismic social event forces a change

pew research found last year that the median homeowner has 45% of their overall net worth in their primary residence. it's higher for non-white ethnicities. given the significant uncertainty most households express about their ability to retire, very few homeowners will support policies that would significantly improve affordability, it would make their own precarious retirement situation even worse

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/12/04/the-assets-households-own-and-the-debts-they-carry/

The fact that "my housing prices!" is even an important metric for most people is damning on so many levels. NIMBY white assholes use it as a cry to prevent affordable housing from being built in their neighborhood. Poor minorities have the vast majority of their net worth dumped into their housing which makes lower prices harder for them to have loan collateral and build actual wealth.

For a giant chunk of people, housing price fluctuations only mean anything paying property taxes or refinancing a mortgage.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 22:17

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

yronic heroism posted:

Being the party with the power of appointment for 20 out of 24 years (like 1968-1992) or at least 28 out of 40 (like 1952-1992) would be a pretty big start.

The left isn't a party

# ? Mar 19, 2024 23:29

Rand Brittain: Mar 25, 2013; "Go on until you're stopped."

Apparently Mexico announced it would not be accepting deportations from Texas. How much of a difference does that make?

# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:15

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Haley is at 14% in Florida with 90% of the vote in. Early voting started after she dropped out and only registered Republicans can vote. DeSantis is at 4% but tragically dropped out before he could get third place in his home state.

Car dealership and blockchain-based tech company owner Bernie Moreno looks like he's favored in the Ohio senate primary (3% lead with 20% in, but Twitter says it's all early voting), which is the best outcome since they'll all vote the same but he's the most likely to throw the general election. edit: NYT called it for him :toot:

James Garfield fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Mar 20, 2024

# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:31

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Rand Brittain posted:

Apparently Mexico announced it would not be accepting deportations from Texas. How much of a difference does that make?

Presumably lots? If a Texas State Guard bus or some dumb poo poo shows up at the Mexican border they can just do the same "lol no

" as any sovereign state outside of specific situations that this doesn't meet.

then the poor bastards who got picked up get stuffed in some temporary detention camp or something presumably, which sucks, but they don't get deported as such

then they hopefully get to sue the state of Texas for six figures

# ? Mar 20, 2024 02:44

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Goatse James Bond posted:

Presumably lots? If a Texas State Guard bus or some dumb poo poo shows up at the Mexican border they can just do the same "lol no " as any sovereign state outside of specific situations that this doesn't meet.

then the poor bastards who got picked up get stuffed in some temporary detention camp or something presumably, which sucks, but they don't get deported as such

then they hopefully get to sue the state of Texas for six figures

Mexico needs to arrest any of the Texas State Guard, National Guard, public-spirited citizens, etc. stupid enough to cross the border with a bus full of deportees under the charge of "human trafficking". Let the immigrants go, but throw the Texan in a Mexican jail.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:05

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

like, what do you think the US CBP agents do if the Mexican government suddenly decides to deport 200k central American migrants to the US

cbp goes "lol" and doesn't let them into the country and now they're still Mexico's concern

same going the other way

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:10

Thaddius the Large: Jul 5, 2006; It's in the five-hole!

I mean my assumption was Texas LEOs would just start marching people across the desert toward Mexico at gunpoint until they decided to head back home and let the sun sort them out, but hopefully that�s just being melodramatic

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:12

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

Thaddius the Large posted:

I mean my assumption was Texas LEOs would just start marching people across the desert toward Mexico at gunpoint until they decided to head back home and let the sun sort them out, but hopefully that’s just being melodramatic

Is there precedent for that in modern times?

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:21

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Is there precedent for that in modern times?

no, and if the state guard or whoever suddenly decides "well we're just going to kill everybody" then I don't really see why we're getting upset about Supreme Court decisions

it's a fantasy about a scenario that has nothing to do with what Texan law enforcement is currently notionally allowed to do

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:24

SpeakSlow: May 17, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

So, how many of these "unique encounters" are just the same people coming back again? Feels like the Border Bros are padding their numbers for handy election year caravan clout.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:36

Okuteru: Nov 10, 2007; Choose this life you're on your own

Didn't the Speaker of the House say that Mexico will "do what is it told" in regards to this?

Funny how that turned out.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:36

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Is there precedent for that in modern times?

Most recently, Belarus did this to Poland and Lithuania. They flew in Iraqi migrants with promises of EU immigration and basically force marched them towards the border, where they were then made to freeze in a no man's land between the border posts.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:45

Pantaloon Pontiff: Jun 25, 2023

mutata posted:

Yes, obviously. Hence me saying that they'll never unfuck the Court.

Anything reasonably called 'the left' would happily unfuck the court, but the Democrats are not 'the left' by a reasonable standard, and 'not right-wing enough to be Republican = the left' isn't a reasonable standard. The Democratic party has lots of members who are old-school conservatives, centrists, liberals, and others that just don't qualify as 'left'. Your specific claim included "But even if the left took the House and kept the Senate and the presidency," but the left doesn't have the Senate and the presidency. It's pretty common for people in this thread to talk as though the Democrats are a unified left-wing party, but they're just not.

The left can't unfuck the court because the left doesn't control the Presidency and only has a few members in the Senate and the House.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:46

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Morrow posted:

Most recently, Belarus did this to Poland and Lithuania. They flew in Iraqi migrants with promises of EU immigration and basically force marched them towards the border, where they were then made to freeze in a no man's land between the border posts.

I think Booby meant "in the US" but yeah there's been some fuckery of that sort around the EU borders

SpeakSlow posted:

So, how many of these "unique encounters" are just the same people coming back again? Feels like the Border Bros are padding their numbers for handy election year caravan clout.

unclear, one of the things that happens periodically (it's not just a Biden ""reform"" although I'd like it to be) is a reduction in paperwork for catch and release encounters, leading to people not being banned from entry officially for years

E: cbp's incentives there war between "we would like these people banned" and "boy it really does cut down on our workload per migrant if we can just remove them and have our paperwork be a mark on the tally board"

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Mar 20, 2024

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:56

Okuteru: Nov 10, 2007; Choose this life you're on your own

Morrow posted:

Most recently, Belarus did this to Poland and Lithuania. They flew in Iraqi migrants with promises of EU immigration and basically force marched them towards the border, where they were then made to freeze in a no man's land between the border posts.

Didn't the Dominican Republic do that to Haitians who were stripped of Birthright Citizenship?

# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:58

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

SCOTUS is loving stupid and so courts are forced to do this slapdash back and forth. Wonder if any chud cop got excited and went out and arrested anyone in the few hours that it was legal
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1770283782479687818
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1770286174667411588

Piell fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Mar 20, 2024

# ? Mar 20, 2024 04:15

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Pantaloon Pontiff posted:

"The left" doesn't have the Senate or presidency unless you're using a really skewed definition of 'left'. Even if you consider Biden a leftist because his labor policy isn't entirely bad, numerous Democratic senators certainly don't qualify as 'left', most obviously Manchin. There aren't even 50 votes in the Senate for removing the filibuster, there certainly aren't 50 votes for radically altering the Supreme Court - something even a president as popular as FDR couldn't pull off.

Back when the left-of-center (can we just skip the whole "no true leftist" circular argument, please?) had control of the Senate and the presidency, they didn't need to "fix" the Court, because they controlled the Court too. A good chunk of the current Court's decisions that we hate so much are just undoing rulings from the liberal courts of the past.

The real lesson we should be taking away from this is that letting Congress rot away for decades while relying on the Supreme Court to protect us from the consequences was not a good way to maintain political influence long-term.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 04:45

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Main Paineframe posted:

Back when the left-of-center (can we just skip the whole "no true leftist" circular argument, please?) had control of the Senate and the presidency, they didn't need to "fix" the Court, because they controlled the Court too. A good chunk of the current Court's decisions that we hate so much are just undoing rulings from the liberal courts of the past.

The real lesson we should be taking away from this is that letting Congress rot away for decades while relying on the Supreme Court to protect us from the consequences was not a good way to maintain political influence long-term.

If you're trying to skip the no true leftist circular argument it's probably better to refer to the group that had that control as the Democratic Party rather than describing them as being left of center. Otherwise you open a discussion as to what "center" means and you just change to a different definition debate.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 06:22

Pantaloon Pontiff: Jun 25, 2023

Main Paineframe posted:

Back when the left-of-center (can we just skip the whole "no true leftist" circular argument, please?) had control of the Senate and the presidency, they didn't need to "fix" the Court, because they controlled the Court too. A good chunk of the current Court's decisions that we hate so much are just undoing rulings from the liberal courts of the past.

Pointing out that presidents like Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, and Bill Clinton, and senators like Joe Manchin don't qualify as 'leftist' under most reasonable definitions of 'leftist' is not remotely the same thing as making a 'no true leftist' argument, and is certainly not a circular argument. I'm also not really sure what you mean by 'controlled the court' - the court that produced Roe v Wade had 5 members appointed by Republicans and only 4 appointed by Democrats, and one of the two dissents in Roe was JFK's appointee while 3 of Nixon's 4 appointees agreed with the decision.

There are a lot of centrist and conservative Democrats, discussing things as if all Democrats are firm leftists (or even 'left of center') is inaccurate and leads to misunderstanding.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 07:36

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

Worth keeping in mind that the politics around changing the court have themselves changed, due to both the court torching its own legitimacy through stupid, inconsistent, and spectacularly unpopular rulings, and the Republicans blatantly and directly stealing a seat so their chosen justices could make said rulings. For the average Dem, going up against the Court is a lot more palatable now than it was in 2009 or even in 1938, because the Rubicon in many ways has already been crossed. I'd still be surprised if they got enough votes to pass it in the Senate if the Dems somehow hold the chamber, the House, and the Presidency in 2025, but it's certainly not completely impossible � especially if the Court continues to make ridiculous and unpopular rulings like they have been, and don't back off like their predecessors did when Roosevelt was attacking them.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 07:53

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Vroom vroom, BEEP BEEP!; Nap Ghost

You can even argue that five of the six conservative justices were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote - Alito and Roberts by GWB were after his 2004 win where he narrowly won the popular vote, but arguably that doesn't happen if he doesn't win in 2000 (and isn't president during 9/11)

It's ironic how divisive the Court's decisions have been given how Roberts wants to be known, but it's entirely his own fault. Still, I wonder how much angrier people would be if not for his nonsensical defense of the Affordable Care Act

# ? Mar 20, 2024 13:51

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Thaddius the Large posted:

I mean my assumption was Texas LEOs would just start marching people across the desert toward Mexico at gunpoint until they decided to head back home and let the sun sort them out, but hopefully that�s just being melodramatic

As is typical, the effects of the bill are being wildly exaggerated online.

Under the law, state peace officers have to observe a person crossing the border illegally, then they may arrest them and take them before a magistrate, who can then order the person back across - if the person agrees. But that's insane, you say, there are going to be massive backlogs and overcrowded facilities and it's not workable, you say. Correct. My strong belief is that they don't intend to enforce this law, its entire purpose is to go before SCOTUS and overturn Arizona v US. Regardless of all that the law certainly doesn't empower state cops to go around rounding up suspected illegal immigrants in Dallas or whatever.

Remember like a month ago when the entire internet was freaking out about how we were about to enter a civil war because Greg Abbott put out a press release?

https://twitter.com/jaspscherer/status/1770440140927664367

Like, that just is flat out not true. It's scaring a lot of people who don't need to be scared.

zoux fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Mar 20, 2024

# ? Mar 20, 2024 14:18

enahs: Jan 1, 2010; Grow up.

zoux posted:

As is typical, the effects of the bill are being wildly exaggerated online.

Under the law, state peace officers have to observe a person crossing the border illegally, then they may arrest them and take them before a magistrate, who can then order the person back across - if the person agrees. But that's insane, you say, there are going to be massive backlogs and overcrowded facilities and it's not workable, you say. Correct. My strong belief is that they don't intend to enforce this law, its entire purpose is to go before SCOTUS and overturn Arizona v US. Regardless of all that the law certainly doesn't empower state cops to go around rounding up suspected illegal immigrants in Dallas or whatever.

Remember like a month ago when the entire internet was freaking out about how we were about to enter a civil war because Greg Abbott put out a press release?

https://twitter.com/jaspscherer/status/1770440140927664367

Like, that just is flat out not true. It's scaring a lot of people who don't need to be scared.

Not saying you're wrong, but can you please share the portion of the law that states the bolded part? The snippet that you posted doesn't indicate anything about timing or that the peace officer must witness anything.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 14:44

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Sure, here's the full text

There's only one way to know that, and it's to directly observe the person doing it.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 14:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 12:09

Oil!: Nov 5, 2008; Der's e'rl in dem der hills!; Ham Wrangler

zoux posted:

Sure, here's the full text

There's only one way to know that, and it's to directly observe the person doing it.

It's good to know this because police always enforce laws to the letter and not their own bizarre interpretations of it.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 15:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

«‹›310 »