Lord Liaden Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 No argument in principle, mega. Unfortunately, at this point in the political divide in the States, any naming and shaming will not come from a group nominally including the person named, but from another group opposed to at least some features of the first group. That naming and shaming will immediately be held up by the first group as biased unfair treatment, to be either ignored or responded to with attacks of their own. If there is still a moderate majority in America, it's being drowned out by the rhetoric of the more extreme factions, so its ability to shame offenders is muted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 We had someone take BB shots here at the county Republican political offices a few years ago and threw bricks into their offices injuring 2 people a few years before that. Then someone backed into the local democrat offices here in town and dumped an entire pickup bed full of manure just 2 years ago. Some of this stuff has always gone on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 IndianaJoe3, Dr.Device, Iuz the Evil and 10 others 4 7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 On 10/27/2018 at 12:19 AM, Lord Liaden said: Question from your neighbor in the Great White North: I've seen some Republican campaign ads on television lately telling voters that if the Democrats take control of Congress, everything you value in life will be destroyed (not quite in so many words, but not far off). Oddly, I haven't caught any Democratic ads yet (but I don't watch much television). What's the tone of the ones you Americans have seen? Same as Republican, or different? I've only see ads for local races. The big one is to replace a retiring Republican representative; it's pulling in a lot of outside money becaue the seat is competitive for the first time, well, ever. The attack ads accuse the R candidate, Dino Rossi, of being a career politician (true; he's been at this for decades) who hurts the poor and helps the rich; and accuse the D candidate, first-timer Kim Schrier, of wanting to raise taxes sky-high. So, same-old same-old. Another D running for state rep is accused of being "too radical," with mailers citing various anti-Trump statements she's made, but it still seems fairly mild to me. Perhaps the most interesting local race involves incumbent Republican state rep Michelle Caldier. Her D opponent, another first-timer, has barely run at all: All I've seen is her stement in the voter's guide that she Cares A Lot. Caldier also faced a primary challenge from a perennial local candidate, Randy Boss, who got his start campaigning against tolls on a new bridge and since then has run for something, anything, every cycle. Caldier managed to offend some local Republicans by working with state Democrats to pass practical legislation instead of fighting scorched-earth anti-tax crusades or culture wars, and Boss ran (in part) on this. His campaign also produced a big fat lie about her financial impropriety, which would have been slanderous except the state Supreme Court ruled a while back that in political campaigns, big fat lies are permitted speech. So, I'm voting for Caldier despite the straight D ticket I'm voting otherwise. When your own side attacks you for doing your job well, that's a pretty good recommendation. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 stochastic terrorism [stuh-kas-tik ter-uh-riz-uh m] -noun- the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted: "The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Vox has an article interviewing some legal experts vis a vis Trumps announcement that he will end Birthright Citizenship. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts TLDR, it will most likely go nowhere. If anything, he will appeal to the "jurisdiction" clause. Normally, that just means that Diplomats can't say their kids have citizenship, or if Russia invaded, the occupiers couldn't say their kids were citizens. So, Trump might try to keep up with his "invaders" rhetoric to say that some impoverished migrants count. Even though they are clearly under US jurisdiction, in that even an undocumented immigrant working illegally can be arrested and prosecuted. There's a reason the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 didn't just sneak across the border and claim no one had jurisdiction over him. Quote 14th Amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. EDIT: FWIW, the relevant supreme court case here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Think about how racist the country was in 1898. If the court of 1898 couldn't be persuaded a Chinaman was not a citizen, it won't work today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 You may be underestimating this new Kavanaugh court, but I do hope you're correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Huh. Graham is set to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship too. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/graham-to-introduce-legislation-to-end-birthright-citizenship/ar-BBP6UUh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 NYTimes runs an expose' on Beto O'Rouke detailing his political dealings to help his billionaire father-in-law's real estate deals. Some Democrats apparently aren't exactly happy at the Times. https://www.dailywire.com/news/37777/yikes-leftists-lose-their-minds-bash-new-york-emily-zanotti https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/us/politics/beto-orourke-el-paso-texas-senate.html TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st barbara Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 On 10/27/2018 at 8:20 AM, archer said: I don't trust that Trump can remember anything which any advisors try to tell him long enough to relay it to someone else over the phone. But I also don't trust that Trump understands, at all, the difference between information which should be kept secret vs things which you can say in public. Having to listen to Bannon is punishment enough without being expected to pay for the "privilege". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, st barbara said: Having to listen to Bannon is punishment enough without being expected to pay for the "privilege". Too true. I'm a political junkie so I'd go to a free dinner to hear any political figure, even Bannon. But I could only think of maybe two people who I'd pay $10 to hear at a dinner and no one alive that I'd pay $20 to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Sociotard said: Vox has an article interviewing some legal experts vis a vis Trumps announcement that he will end Birthright Citizenship. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts TLDR, it will most likely go nowhere. If anything, he will appeal to the "jurisdiction" clause. Normally, that just means that Diplomats can't say their kids have citizenship, or if Russia invaded, the occupiers couldn't say their kids were citizens. So, Trump might try to keep up with his "invaders" rhetoric to say that some impoverished migrants count. Even though they are clearly under US jurisdiction, in that even an undocumented immigrant working illegally can be arrested and prosecuted. There's a reason the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 didn't just sneak across the border and claim no one had jurisdiction over him. EDIT: FWIW, the relevant supreme court case here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Think about how racist the country was in 1898. If the court of 1898 couldn't be persuaded a Chinaman was not a citizen, it won't work today. An appeal to the jurisdiction clause by the administration is completely useless in my opinion. We have illegal aliens in jail right now because they've committed crimes inside the US and have gone through our judicial system to be tried and sentenced. If we have no jurisdiction over them, there would have been no basis for our courts to have heard those cases at all. We have laws to keep non-citizens out of the country. If we have no jurisdiction, those laws couldn't exist. If we had no jurisdiction over them, how could we have laws which would allow us to change their status and naturalize them? If illegal aliens stuffed the ballot boxes during the mid-term election, we would have no way to stop them (legally) if we have no jurisdiction over them. If the Court was to rule that the US has no jurisdiction, it would throw out dozens of laws and create tens of thousands of successful lawsuits for false imprisonment of every illegal alien who has ever been detained or imprisoned. The whole thing is mind-bogglingly stupid. Even if the majority of the court were to want to go along with the administration, there's no way that they could interpret the decision narrowly enough to let the administration have its way without completely tearing apart our ability to police our borders and people who choose to come into this country. Everyone visiting the US from abroad would in essence have diplomatic immunity plus have the ability to not be PNG'ed. DShomshak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 I wonder if he would try treating undocumented persons who commit crimes as combatants and put them in POW camps. In keeping with his invader rhetoric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 He puts undocumented toddlers who haven't committed crimes in internment camps. Adult undocumented criminals is a no-brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Well, this is a lawyer advancing a stand to serve his client's interest, and it probably won't work...but I do believe there's some truth to it. Not enough to mitigate any sentence, but..... https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/us/bomb-plot-kansas-conviction-trump-rhetoric-trnd/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 5 hours ago, unclevlad said: Well, this is a lawyer advancing a stand to serve his client's interest, and it probably won't work...but I do believe there's some truth to it. Not enough to mitigate any sentence, but..... https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/us/bomb-plot-kansas-conviction-trump-rhetoric-trnd/index.html There's a heck of a lot of things with some truth to it but which should not mitigate a sentence. Trump has also bad-mouthed Mexicans, journalists, pollsters, Democrats, and many Republicans. No one should ever get a reduced sentence for committing a violent crime against a person or group because Trump has been running on at the mouth defaming that person or group. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 Michael Anton (Donald Trump's former Deputy National Security Adviser) posted a couple of opinions giving the legal argument for ending Jus Soli. It was interesting, and referred to the actual Senate debates over the 14th amendment to get at what they meant with the Jurisdiction clause. Linked here for those who like seeing what the other side believes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/citizenship-shouldnt-be-a-birthright/2018/07/18/7d0e2998-8912-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/ And a rebuttal https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/31/18047896/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 Conservative activists allegedly involved in plot to get women to lie about being sexually harassed by Robert Mueller 'Surefire Intelligence'. That name sounds like something from an 80s action movie...or a Champions campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 Sarah Sanders was asked if Trump might suspend Habeas Corpus to arrest the migrant caravan. She did not denounce it, saying only that the administration was looking at multiple options. Possibility 1) The White House is not considering that, but the question caught Sanders off guard. She then gave a standard non-answer. Possibility 2) They are totally considering that. I'm leaning to 1, myself. Anyone want to take a $5 bet-to-charity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 I'm guessing #1 myself, though God only knows what might be rolling around in Trump's skull at any given moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 I'm leaning 2). They already skip over the arrest bit to kidnap small children and put them in camps. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize the military to fend off a few thousand unarmed migrants on foot (who, again, are largely kids). To try to predict what this administration will do in any given situation, I think of the ugliest, most evil possible option, and then think of something more evil than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 5 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said: I'm guessing #1 myself, though God only knows what might be rolling around in Trump's skull at any given moment. I'm picturing a Magic 8-Ball die with a little viewing window under the hair flap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 7 hours ago, Sociotard said: Sarah Sanders was asked if Trump might suspend Habeas Corpus to arrest the migrant caravan. She did not denounce it, saying only that the administration was looking at multiple options. Possibility 1) The White House is not considering that, but the question caught Sanders off guard. She then gave a standard non-answer. Possibility 2) They are totally considering that. I'm leaning to 1, myself. Anyone want to take a $5 bet-to-charity? To start off with, the only branch of government which can suspend habeus corpus is Congress (the legislative branch, Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution) so it was a really stupid out-of-the-blue question to ask the White House Press Secretary (the executive branch). I'm not surprised that Sanders was caught off-guard by the question. I doubt she has enough on the ball to know what habeas corpus is, whether habeas corpus can be suspended, and which branch of government might have the power to do so. A standard non-answer of "we aren't ruling anything out" is the right thing for a person in her job when she's caught off-guard since otherwise she'd either be making policy herself (one way or the other) or just giving a blank deer-in-the-headlights look to the cameras while standing there like an idiot (someone queue up the list of Sanders' "blank look" photos). Anyway, there's no way that Congress would consider doing that now. For one thing, Congress isn't going to be in session until after the election so there'd be no reason for any Republicans to do a grandstanding vote which would never pass into law at that point in time. Now if Congress were in session and it was two months before the election, Trump might talk some Republicans into informally proposing it as a publicity stunt.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 That's a possible interpretation, because it is in the section that set up Congress, but it doesn't explicitly say that. All it says is that it can't be suspended unless there is an emergency threatening public safety. Presidents have suspended it in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clnicholsusa Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 As unpleasant as this will be, the truth is the truth. The reporter asking the question is, at best, uninformed or, at worst, intending no more than propaganda. Two factors have combined to make it so the federal government doesn't have to suspend habeas corpus to do whatever they want with the migrant caravan. The first factor is the assertion that the migrant caravan is infiltrated by terrorists. Once this assertion is made, the second factor gives the POTUS carte blanch on his actions. Our public memories are short, so I'll remind everyone that the NDAA has been signed into law. The government has the authority to assert that ANYONE is a terrorist and have them captured and detained by the military without recourse to any court system, and therefore free of habeas corpus. This nibble at your civil liberties came directly from the senate, please be sure to let them know how you feel about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.