|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/haleytalbotcnn/status/1780996275783061760 To be fair, calling him "tubby" is probably the only one out of that group Gaetz would actually be offended/insulted by. The rest is just a Tuesday to him.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1780748530753196525 I checked the tweet & follow-ups but there's no link to the source poll or its sampling methods. There's also no mention of which polling outfit conducted it. The x account appears to be run by some rando. Do you have more info about this particular poll, or at least the name of the pollster?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
While noodling around trying to find info on that poll from other accounts that focus on polling I came across this one: https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1780660371495203132 Small sample size, but of likely voters. When all registered voters are asked, Baldwin is up by 5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I wouldn't say that the Dems have moved to the right on immigration at all. I mean everything you said is right but also against your point? I'm pretty close to the issue and professionally and I'm not aware of any attempt by the Democratic party to roll back the Clinton era laws, instead of like what Obama did, building off it by working with local enforcement and jails to deport as many people as they could, which they proudly trumpet here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/immigration/strengthening-enforcement DACA was a momentary pushback but in my lifetime both Democrats and Republicans have been building an escalating jenga tower of oppressive laws and enforcement against the undocumented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:30
|
|
|
It's like someone put John Bolton through a de-aging app.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:38
|
|
|
Sundae posted:It's like someone put John Bolton through a de-aging app. I thought it was Jeff Foxworthy
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:While noodling around trying to find info on that poll from other accounts that focus on polling I came across this one: Not surprising really. Wisconsin is about as 50/50 as a state can get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
It's also April, and is the GOP primary already done there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
Neat Bee posted:Why would the conservatives argue against electoralism? Both parties are sprinting to the right. The biden administration has sprinted, or at least sauntered amiably, to the left on "locking brown people in cages", in addition to what people are saying about the economic-oriented bills that have gotten zip, nada, zero traction among... well, people like you. I've been posting intermittently for years about the Office of Refugee Resettlement, its efforts to undo the damage Trump did, and its various metrics and policies and reports. Short version: the situation isn't great but it's much improved and Kids are no longer In Cages. You recall that talking point, right? Because now you're using a variant of it that is less difficult to defend? Well, I've got some bad news on that one too, because the Biden administration has been pushing pretty hard on - and this is the term they use constantly - alternatives to detention. The theory being, practically everyone with an immigration court date in the system shows up for it, so keeping them detained until then is expensive / annoying / a waste of economic productivity / a waste of community integrity / inhumane I suppose. This is markedly at odds not just with Donald Trump but with previous Democratic presidents, and indeed, it's one of the reasons the GOP is yelling about and impeaching Mayorkas right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's also April, and is the GOP primary already done there? Yep, a couple weeks ago. I've found this link to be handy when checking the primary calendar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
Arturo Ui posted:I thought it was Jeff Foxworthy Oh wow, I can't unsee it now. Thanks, I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:The biden administration has sprinted, or at least sauntered amiably, to the left on "locking brown people in cages", in addition to what people are saying about the economic-oriented bills that have gotten zip, nada, zero traction among... well, people like you. A week ago he was talking about closing our border with Mexico to stop people from immigrating to the US that way completely. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ct/73275908007/ (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:I've seen this argument made in other places. Is this like "Democrats are letting conservative courts win and using 'separation of powers' as an excuse for not overturning their decisions"? Or is it the tired "We could've codified Roe when Obama had a majority" and then ignore that SCOTUS could just overturn that law just as easily? On what grounds would SCOTUS overturn a law legalizing abortion at the federal level?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:On what grounds would SCOTUS overturn a law legalizing abortion at the federal level? scotus can do whatever the 6-3 majority wants to (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
That 60ish days of the Obama barely held together supermajority have been used to say the "dems don't support this because they didn't pass a bill in this window" for 16 years now, it's getting tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:On what grounds would SCOTUS overturn a law legalizing abortion at the federal level? On what grounds did they end stare decisis by overturning Roe v. Wade, which was legal precedent for over 50 years? They will make up whatever justification they want because no one can stop them. The current favorite fig leaf is the fictional "major questions" doctrine, which allows them to mumble some vague "this raises 'major questions' about X" which coincidentally favors the position of far-right reactionaries. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:On what grounds would SCOTUS overturn a law legalizing abortion at the federal level?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:On what grounds would SCOTUS overturn a law legalizing abortion at the federal level? It's not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:04
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yesterday The Baltimore Sun published the results of the U.S. Senate poll the toplines of which I mentioned the other day in which Hogan is burying both Democratic candidates in head-to-heads, while the millionaire Trone looks to be the likely D candidate. Bait him into talking about trump, and publicise to trump his refusal to support him, that would kill the base return in north maryland when TRUMP inevitably explodes on him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:On what grounds did they end stare decisis by overturning Roe v. Wade, which was legal precedent for over 50 years? They will make up whatever justification they want because no one can stop them. The current favorite fig leaf is the fictional "major questions" doctrine, which allows them to mumble some vague "this raises 'major questions' about X" which coincidentally favors the position of far-right reactionaries. Overturning a previous SCOTUS decision is an entirely different animal from overturning legislation that is legitimately signed into law, especially when that law is not obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. "They'd come up with a reason to overturn it" doesn't really fly as a justification for the Dems not pursuing a law guaranteeing abortion when they held a majority in both chambers. Crows Turn Off posted:Why do you think SCOTUS can't overturn federal laws? I don't. Why are you putting words into my mouth that I didn't say?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
It feels pretty reductive imo to look at either the national Republicans or the Democrats as one cohesive party in the sense that everyone involved is actually in agreement on most issues. In reality the two parties are much closer to a right wing to far left and center-left to leftish coalition which most countries end up forming. We just have a system that requires you to put one name on it. In a more reasonable system, AOC and Pelosi wouldn't be in the same party, never mind manchin or someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:11
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:A week ago he was talking about closing our border with Mexico to stop people from immigrating to the US that way completely. Now see, we've actually had some interesting discussions on that here too, and it is distinct from "putting brown people in cages". My presumption is that he's talking about the model in the bipartisan border bill(s) that fell through because he was using the somewhat dumb 'shut down the border' rhetoric to describe it back then. The quick summary is that it would be a temporary (read: subject to border encounter metrics) catch and immediately release asylum seekers (and everyone else) at unauthorized crossing points, except for some who would be transported to authorized crossing points for normal processing. For asylum seekers approaching the regular crossing points, a unclear number would be processed and the rest would be told to come back later. The result would be shifting much of the burden (back) to Mexico and refugee camps on their side of the border. That's bad! It would be better to find the resources to not do that! It is also literally the opposite of putting brown people in cages, which I personally think is an important distinction in the same way that going from "kids in cages" to "percentage of kids in foster care" is a change and is not semantics. The entire point, in fact, is to make them not directly the US's problem at all until they're reached in the queue. it's also probably not the way you characterized it either because there was the provision to let 2k people in a day or whatever but your article isn't actually clear on those details or how they've changed from what was previously bandied about
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:It feels pretty reductive imo to look at either the national Republicans or the Democrats as one cohesive party in the sense that everyone involved is actually in agreement on most issues. In reality the two parties are much closer to a right wing to far left and center-left to leftish coalition which most countries end up forming. We just have a system that requires you to put one name on it. In a more reasonable system, AOC and Pelosi wouldn't be in the same party, never mind manchin or someone. Really it's the racists versus the anti-racists. And of the anti-racists, large pluralities are erstwhile conservatives who would be republican if they could stop being so loving racist. Though you could may also be able to say that a large plurality of republicans could be pro labor socialists if they could stop being so loving racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's also April, and is the GOP primary already done there? The primary isn't until August. We don't even know for sure that David Clarke won't run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Or is it the tired "We could've codified Roe when Obama had a majority" and then ignore that SCOTUS could just overturn that law just as easily? Doesn't seem like there's much point to voting if even in the wildly impossible 2024 Dem blowout supermajority result, good things still can't happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:Voting for liberals to stop fascists is fascism. Voting for fascists on the other hand, totally not fascist at all. Cool and good actually. No one is going to stop the fascism and one day they'll get around to you. Remember to vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Overturning a previous SCOTUS decision is an entirely different animal from overturning legislation that is legitimately signed into law, especially when that law is not obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. "They'd come up with a reason to overturn it" doesn't really fly as a justification for the Dems not pursuing a law guaranteeing abortion when they held a majority in both chambers. Are you high? Or have you forgotten the VRA that Roberts court gutted and largely led us to this poo poo we're in now. There is zero difference between the SCOTUS finding a precedent unconstitutional and a law unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Doesn't seem like there's much point to voting if even in the wildly impossible 2024 Dem blowout supermajority result, good things still can't happen. Well, it wouldn't have been a problem if more states voted for Clinton instead of Trump. Then Trump wouldn't have put three Heritage Foundation goons in the Supreme Court and overturn Roe (or any equivalent law).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Skex posted:Are you high? Or have you forgotten the VRA that Roberts court gutted and largely led us to this poo poo we're in now. Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc? Bear in mind, this argument only came up because someone's answer to "The Dems should have codified Roe into law when they had a majority" was "Well, SCOTUS would have overturned it anyway." I am challenging that answer, because I do not think things would have been that simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Live updates - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/18/nyregion/columbia-university-protests In other news, Columbia University's president asked the NYPD's Strategic Response Group (https://theintercept.com/2021/04/07/nypd-strategic-response-unit-george-floyd-protests/) to arrest protesters who had set up an encampment. There's been over 100 arrests so far including Ilhan Omar's daughter. This comes one day after her appearance before Congress. Pretty wild considering Columbia's history with protesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc? Seems like the right wing is pretty good at manufacturing cases and shopping them to sympathetic circuit courts to get them up the chain. I am almost certain you are at least familiar with the gay marriage cake thing which, shocker, turned out to be a completely bogus lawsuit that should have been summarily dismissed by the first judge it went before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc? Probably some dumb garbage where the right to life is sanctified in the declaration of independence and abortion isn't literally (and by literally, I mean the word abortion written down) anywhere in there or the constitution so therefore eat poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Seems like the right wing is pretty good at manufacturing cases and shopping them to sympathetic circuit courts to get them up the chain. I am almost certain you are at least familiar with the gay marriage cake thing which, shocker, turned out to be a completely bogus lawsuit that should have been summarily dismissed by the first judge it went before. Of course, and I don't deny that it's a possible outcome, but "SCOTUS could have overturned such a law" does not justify the Dems failing to even try to pass such a law back when they held a large majority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
To be fair, "codifying Roe would be pointless because a possible future conservative SCOTUS could just overturn it later" is a pretty silly thing to say. But the reason it's a silly thing to say isn't that SCOTUS doesn't have that power. The reason is that there's no need for SCOTUS to involve itself at all, because Congress already has that power. When the GOP was putting anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court, they controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and they also demonstrated at that point that they had the votes to bypass the filibuster for the sake of installing anti-abortion judges. That's sufficient power to repeal an ordinary law, without needing the Court to lift a finger. If the Dems had passed a law codifying Roe during the Obama era, then the GOP could easily have repealed that law during the Trump era. They had the votes for it in the first half of Trump's term. The only question is whether they would be foolish enough to actually do so...but while the general consensus a few years ago was that they wouldn't dare to actually ban abortion, they've thoroughly demonstrated that quite a few of them actually are that foolish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
And in other news today, the UN Security Council voted on Palestine statehood, 12 yes (including Ecuador), UK and Switzerland abstained, and US vetoed. https://apnews.com/article/un-vote-palestinian-membership-us-veto-8d8ad60d8576b5ab9e70d2f8bf7e2881 "AP posted:US vetoes widely supported UN resolution backing full UN membership for Palestine It would appear the Blinken memos were not successful in any way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:30
|
|
|
koolkal posted:And in other news today, the UN Security Council voted on Palestine statehood, 12 yes (including Ecuador), UK and Switzerland abstained, and US vetoed. It's good that we managed to both veto the proposal, and publicly show our rear end and how little international soft power we have now. That's cool. We got what we wanted, and managed to do it in a way that makes us look even more craven and isolated, coddling a genocidal ethnostate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
Genuinely wonder what the deal with Ecuador was. Thought that they were pretty much in pocket, especially after the Mexican embassy thing. Did they really just not want to go along with it, or was it more embarrassing to have Ecuador be the only other No so we told them to forget it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:Genuinely wonder what the deal with Ecuador was. Thought that they were pretty much in pocket, especially after the Mexican embassy thing. Did they really just not want to go along with it, or was it more embarrassing to have Ecuador be the only other No so we told them to forget it. Ecuador did not want to go along with the veto if the US was the only other one because it makes them look bad if they can't at least peel off another non-US veto. The Mexico incident made them less inclined to want to show their rear end internationally. Based on the leaked memo: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
selec posted:It's good that we managed to both veto the proposal, and publicly show our rear end and how little international soft power we have now. That's cool. We got what we wanted, and managed to do it in a way that makes us look even more craven and isolated, coddling a genocidal ethnostate. How does any of this help Palestinians?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:How does any of this help Palestinians? How does vetoing this help? I don’t think it does help them at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:34
|
|