Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Reaching the Tipping Point

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Methinks she's just joking/being Jace, Scot.

I know.  What fun is a joke if there is no one to be the strait man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I know.  What fun is a joke if there is no one to be the strait man?

More seriously, for the rest of us, STATES RIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTSSSSS are back in style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The SCOTUSblog is “fake news”?

Shticks aside (getting way too high for humor), it's obviously welcome news.

That said, this is an instance where girding oneself in cynicism can provide solace. I can take this correct ruling, which seems (the actual lawsuit situation itself aside) obvious to the point of incomprehension as to why it was even on the table, and call it an absolute victory. Because I had written it off as a loss already, no matter the legalities.

But for you, my lovelies. This is no victory. It's a siren. Luring you into the mists in pursuit of long dead truths you used to know. You'll hinge entire paragraphs of optimistic appraisals on this isolated... what? Confirmation of a single seemingly unquestionable rule that keeps alive the possibility of a future reckoning for the crisis that is right now devouring every other democratic principal the game is supposed to be played on?

I can't wait to read them. Hope is poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

More seriously, for the rest of us, STATES RIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTSSSSS are back in style.

I was surprised to see Ginsburg and Gorsuch joining in their dissent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

More seriously, for the rest of us, STATES RIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTSSSSS are back in style.

Hahahaha!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Look at you, thinking state's rights are back en vogue. It's only needed so long as the GOP can use it hypocritically. 

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

You should write for Hallmark.

I think she runs the handle for Nihilist Arby's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hahahaha!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Look at you, thinking state's rights are back en vogue. It's only needed so long as the GOP can use it hypocritically. 

I think she runs the handle for Nihilist Arby's.

Tywin,

It prevented Trump from being able to pardon with impunity in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

It prevented Trump from being able to pardon with impunity in this case.

For now. After all, everyone knows that Trump saying he'd accept dirt from foreign actors really means Republicans need to talk about Fusion GPS. 

You are behaving like these people are honest actors playing by the same set of rules. They aren't, when the time comes, Republicans will figure out a way to justify anything the man does. They've been doing it for three years. Why change now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 12:33 AM, ThinkerX said:

Assuming the Democratic party takes the white house and holds onto the one branch of congress, way I see it...

 

best that can be hoped for is a path to citizenship for the Dreamers combined with an increase in work permits with the trade off being a fully funded wall and far stricter immigration requirements.  Even that much will be hells own fight.

 

Trump is right about another thing: an (illegal) immigration solution will have to include Mexico.

Do you really think there would be a push for a wall without Trump? Even when Republicans had both houses they wouldn't agree to fund a wall; I don't think that would really be part of an immigration compromise, which I doubt could happen anyway considering only one political party is willing to compromise in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dornishpen said:

Do you really think there would be a push for a wall without Trump? Even when Republicans had both houses they wouldn't agree to fund a wall; I don't think that would really be part of an immigration compromise, which I doubt could happen anyway considering only one political party is willing to compromise in general.

Heh, only now for the first time have I pondered a Trump challenger from the right since Trump has failed on the Wall.

Of course, the average Trumper has convinced themselves that Trump has somehow succeeded on the Wall, so there's not really a demand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 11:43 PM, Triskele said:

Indeed, what is the Dems platform going to be?  This will be a huge campaign issue both because Trump will make it one as part of his MAGA and because it's a legit issue in its own right.  I cannot imagine that open borders is the position (though Trump will probably paint whichever Dem's position as such no matter what).  

Predictions:

saying family separation is inhumane and that we have a system of laws for handling immigrants seeking assylum

But as you say, this actually has blown up.  Way more people are trying to come than ever, and it seems like the Dem is going to have to have some clearer message on this.  Even if Trump doesn't have a solution he at least has a message that works for his base.

I think turning Trump's handling of immigration into a weakness may be easier than a lot of people think. Just keep beating him over the head with the fact that border crossings have skyrocketed since he took over and changed approach.

Unfortunately, I also think that with the average American, (who is none too kindly disposed towards immigration) the only you can sell what I feel is the right policy (use aid and careful oversight to try to get Central America on its feet) is with some really unsavory sales marketing. Something along the lines of "Trump blew up aid to Central America and they all wanted to come here to get away from the hell hole their countries became! At least before that things were manageable! Lets throw some money at them so they stay over there instead of coming here!"

It's certainly not my ideal solution, I'd rather welcome people in and put 'em to work legally, but a policy that embraced such an idea would raise the hackles of both the rabidly anti-brown immigrant Right, and the general low info voter who only votes as a reaction to what has happened since the last election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dornishpen said:

Do you really think there would be a push for a wall without Trump? Even when Republicans had both houses they wouldn't agree to fund a wall; I don't think that would really be part of an immigration compromise, which I doubt could happen anyway considering only one political party is willing to compromise in general.

I think, at present, a great many people have failed to grasp just how massive and ugly this refugee crisis is going to get over the next decade or two.  Tens of millions of refugees seeking legal or illegal entry to the US each year might be enough to force a rethink on immigration and the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 4:49 AM, Triskele said:

Then I'm not asking the question in the right way.  It's a more overall messaging question policies be damned asked in a way to ponder "would you track hard right in this one area to better achieve victories on several other important fronts?"  

This question is ultimately "would you trade the well being of prospective immigrants/asylum seekers for a material/monetary gain for the people already in your country" where if the answer is yes you are then looking at 'well being' meaning a spectrum from "heavily restricting legal immigration intakes" to "putting people in concentration camps even when they are legitimately seeking asylum". Australia was asked this question and our center left party caved and said yes even to the most extreme options there and it disgusts me.

The other problem with this supposedly pragmatic mindset? It hasn't worked. The left wing parties running on this platform just reinforces the right wing narrative that this is THE issue that the election should be decided in, and the people that vote for torture of refugees to net themselves an extra couple of thousand dollars a year (which doesnt even happen because the torture camps cost more money than letting refugees in would) feel even more certain that they are right to vote for the right wing party. The only election that the centre left party have outright won in the last 20 years is the one in which they opposed those policies and it wasn't a major electoral issue. And not only does it reinforce the importance of the right wing narrative it also does this...

On 6/17/2019 at 11:04 AM, larrytheimp said:

This would be enough to make me not vote.  I will absolutely not vote for anyone saying this shit, even if I suspected it was tongue in cheek.  Fuck this picking up the veil of white supremacy and bigoted BS to maybe win a couple of votes.

 

*For any candidate on board.  Would still vote but it might be a pretty meagre ballot.  What do you gain by putting out some mealy mouthed bullshit to appeal to racists and xenophobes?  Do you realize this would cripple millennial turnout?  

Even in a country with compulsory voting, that shit really drives away a significant chunk of the people who need to be enthusiastically voting for you as a centre left party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Even in a country with compulsory voting, that shit really drives away a significant chunk of the people who need to be enthusiastically voting for you as a centre left party.

New Zealand Labour won the last election while openly saying there's a need to put the brakes on immigration. The thing they didn't do is point to any countries or ethnicity and say "we don't want those types here". They did foolishly play the race card, which hurt them in terms of property sales to foreigners by waxing lyrical about how people with "Chinese sounding names" were buying up houses in Auckland and that was pushing up property prices and pushing NZ'ers out of the market. Which was stupid not only because blaming one race of "foreign types"for property prices is dubuious, but also because Chinese are the largest non-indigenous minority in New Zealand, and a very large minority in Auckland specifically. Fortunately for them, Labour made that gaff in a non-election year so it didn't do any long term harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I think, at present, a great many people have failed to grasp just how massive and ugly this refugee crisis is going to get over the next decade or two.  Tens of millions of refugees seeking legal or illegal entry to the US each year might be enough to force a rethink on immigration and the wall.

More or less nasty than the apocalyptic predictions we were hearing from you over a dozen years ago about how society was on the edge of imminent collapse because oil was running out?

Honestly, a major migratory issue could be on the way, but there are so many moving parts at work, (how are the effects of climate change actually going to play out, what is going to be the political and social situations in Central American countries with crime, corruption, politics, etc.) that trying to predict it ahead of time is a fool's game. I don't trust anyone to be clairvoyant enough to accurately foresee the outcome of it all.

Personally, I think if a major migration crisis comes to pass trying to resist it will be counterproductive and futile, (as it is now, every time Trump says he's going to get real tough on closing the border or building the wall, smugglers turn around and tell migrants and refugees "See, you gotta get across the border now before they put this change into effect!" which is one of the reasons why we're seeing a big increase in border crossings) I'd rather welcome them in and legally put them to work.

Unfortunately, I don't know how you sell such a policy to the country, all too many of whom are threatened by immigrants who have a darker skin tone and don't speak English as their first language, so much so that people will simultaneously believe that immigrants are stealing their jobs and are too lazy to work without seeing the contradiction inherent there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably deserves its own thread, but I’ll just post this here for now. Facebook will be introducing a cryptocurrency next year.

What could go wrong???..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/trump-reelection-campaign-kickoff.html

The word, 'fluke' is employed within, with great doubt this is a fluke, though, indeed. fishy

Quote

 

For Mr. Trump himself, the next year and a half will be a chance to prove that he was not just an aberration who managed to slide into office with an Electoral College victory even though nearly three million more voters cast ballots for the other candidate. Ever since taking the oath, Mr. Trump has been sensitive to perceived attacks on his legitimacy, especially the investigations into Russia’s role in helping to elect him. Nothing would do more to validate that legitimacy than winning a second term.

He starts from a stronger position in many ways than that day in 2015, fully in command of the advantages of incumbency — the gushing fund-raising spigot, the unparalleled media bullhorn, the tools of government to reward or punish, the big plane with “United States of America” stenciled on its side conveying power and respect.

And he has firmly seized control of his party in a way that was almost unimaginable in 2016 when Republican elders plotted ways to take the nomination away from him at the convention, then later urged him to drop out just weeks before the November election on the assumption that he would crash and burn.

The Never Trumpers have since faded, the dissenters purged. While elected Republicans push back from time to time, they have largely fallen in line when it really counted. The only challenger to Mr. Trump for his party’s nomination, former Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts, poses no evident threat.

 

From the beginning the indications were there that once squatted he planned on never leaving, no matter what.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/on-politics-trump-reelection-2020.html

 

Quote

Those efforts have helped Mr. Trump’s team more than triple the list of 10 million voter contacts his operation had at the end of the 2016 election. By Election Day, they expect to have at least 50 million, a number awfully close to the 62 million that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016. Those phone numbers and email addresses allow the campaign to reach their supporters immediately....

 

All of this early growth is possible because his operation is exceedingly well-funded, a consequence of Mr. Trump taking the unprecedented step of filing his re-election campaign the day of his inauguration. His campaign had $40 million in the bank as of the last fund-raising report, with a goal of raising $1 billion for the 2020 race. (By comparison, President Barack Obama held less than $2 million in the bank at this point in his re-election cycle.)

 

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zorral said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/trump-reelection-campaign-kickoff.html

The word, 'fluke' is employed within, with great doubt this is a fluke, though, indeed. fishy

From the beginning the indications were there that once squatted he planned on never leaving, no matter what.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/on-politics-trump-reelection-2020.html

 

 

 

If Trump loses in November 2020 and attempts to remain in office after the expiration of his term in January 2021 it really will be a shit fight.  We will find out who in the US Military takes their oath to the US Constitution seriously and who worships at the steps of cults of personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×