Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

haveblue posted:

It is well-settled law that states cannot regulate interstate travel so should be a fun series of court cases (until it reaches scotus, at least)

Unfortunately, it seems to have been crafted to avoid that. It doesn't say you can't travel out of state. The crime is traveling within the state.

It criminalizes obtaining an abortion-inducing drug for a minor, and recruiting, harboring or transporting a pregnant minor for purposes of obtaining an abortion within the state without consent of the parent or guardian. And because it only targets minors and pretends the issue is "parental consent", that gives a fig leaf of reasonability to it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

lil poopendorfer posted:

This is an interesting court document to read:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009.734.0_1.pdf

So FBI, DC Metro Police, and “Homeland Security Investigations” had over 40 informants & agents within the Proud Boys and other January 6 protestors. What’s the point of these undercover guys if they’re not going to stop it? Were these government agents organizing and planning this protest?

At least five FBI under covers — and defense attorneys claimed 12 — were involved in the Gov Whitmer kidnapping case. At least they managed to stop that one

If you have to be undercover, it probably means you're outnumbered. It's absolutely the duty of an undercover informant or agent to pass the information along, sound the alarm bells, request backup. So for me the question isn't "why didn't they stop it", but instead "did the undercover informants pass the information to their agencies?" If not, WHY not? If so, what did the agencies do with that information?

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Mellow Seas posted:

Appropriate for the subject of restricting teen social media use, Ezra Klein's podcast today is about the relationship between social media and teen depression.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447

I think that notion is complete horseshit. They're only using smartphones and social media as a scapegoat so they don't have to look in the loving mirror. Depression is on the rise because previous generations have systematically stripped the wealth of society and transferred it upwards, stripped the planet's resources to produce more wealth for the super-rich, and are leaving the youth a planet with an unsolvable climate crisis which will cripple or radically alter civilization in negative ways.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Main Paineframe posted:

That doesn't really make any sense. The executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit law after Congress' refusal to raise it is going to be a constitutional crisis, no matter when it happens. There's absolutely no merit in triggering it earlier on purpose.

A situation in which the three branches of government do not agree on whether debt payments were valid is necessarily going to be alarming to people who hold US debt or might want to hold it, regardless of when it's triggered.

That's an incorrect, Republican framing. It's not the executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit. Congress controls spending, Congress orders spending, the executive is required to obey the spending which Congress has approved. The issue is that Congress has passed two contradictory laws - the law which says what the debt ceiling is and a law telling the executive how much to spend. The executive must obey both laws, but cannot because of the contradiction. I think a 1979 Supreme Court decision said something to the effect that the executive cannot selectively choose what parts of the budget to ignore - which is what they would be forced to do if they had to adhere to the debt limit.

You've just said that (1)invoking the 14th amendment can't be done now because it's too close to the deadline and would create uncertainty, and also (2) the executive cannot use the 14th amendment earlier than needed because it's unnecessary too far from the deadline. Isn't that a Catch-22? You can only invoke the 14th when it's your last option, but if it's your last option you ALSO cannot invoke it because continuing to pay the bills is for some reason, apparently considered to be just as bad as default.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Foxfire_ posted:

Even if you went to the court with a 14th amendment argument, they're not limited to a strict "debt ceiling, Y/N" response.

It's entirely possible you'd get something like "In a 5-4 decision, the Constitution requires repayment of government bonds to be prioritized. The Treasury department must issue those payments. To resolve the statutory conflict between the debt ceiling law and other laws requiring payments, favor the most recently passed law and skip non-debt payments (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/...) as necessary until things balance."

What part of the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court power to dictate the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that hypothetical ruling seems to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Foxfire_ posted:

In the hypothetical, it'd be normal statuary interpretation. Congress passed a law, then later passed an incompatible law without explicitly repealing the first. Resolving that situation is an ordinary thing the courts routinely do.

I agree that the Supreme Court could rule on which law takes precedence - the law setting the debt ceiling or the law setting the budget. However, I don't believe that the Constitution gives them the power to dictate specifics on the budget themselves like your hypothetical did. And "sure" they could just claim it, but if they overreach too much, eventually people are going to stop obeying them.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Main Paineframe posted:

The first two items could be directly overturned by Congress passing updated laws that address whatever the Court thought was unclear, and the third could be dealt with by Congress passing laws to affirm those rights and doctrines.

That implies that you think the Supreme Court is acting in good faith and just making rulings based on "unclear law," and not inventing ridiculous excuses that serve their radical political agenda, and that the Supreme Court would not just take that updated law and pass it through their "major questions" doctrine to find brand new excuses. That's plainly bullshit.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Randalor posted:

I'm curious why the dems voted the way they did, have any of them said why they voted for/against the bill?

Probably for the same reasons why several people in this thread were unhappy with it: Unnecessary additions of work requirements to SNAP, and disapproval of the GOP taking the world economy hostage. The procedural vote earlier in the day informed the Democratic party how many votes they'd need to pass it (how many could get away with voting against it).

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

If I were his attorney I'd have left the country already. Hopefully after being paid in advance.

Apparently, two of Trump's top attorneys - ones who were in the meeting with the DoJ on Monday abruptly resigned as soon as the indictments dropped.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Main Paineframe posted:

If the state is telling the truth, then what they're doing is legal and probably should stay legal. It makes perfect sense for the state to be able to investigate corrupt and illegal practices at hospitals.

If the state is lying, then they're lying because it's not legal to do what they actually intend to do.

No, the problem is that what the state actually intends to do is intimidate and stoke hate against trans people, and they're using "the law" as their method. They are not "investigating corrupt and illegal practices", they're investigating practices they morally disapprove of. Otherwise, why would they be limiting the so-called "billing fraud" investigation to transgender patients, which would be a very small subset of total patients? It's a fig leaf.

quote:

The VUMC controversy led to heated debates within the General Assembly this spring, when the Republican supermajority dedicated its first piece of legislation to banning all gender transition treatment for minors. Democrats and local families with transgender children lobbied unsuccessfully against the bill, arguing health care should remain a private decision between doctors and families.

The law, set to go into effect on July 1, has been challenged by local families and the Department of Justice in a federal lawsuit, with a judge weighing whether to grant a preliminary injunction ahead of trial. The law bans any treatments or procedures prescribed to treat gender dysphoria, such as puberty blockers, even though doctors could still prescribe those medications to children for other reasons.

Minors currently undergoing treatment from in-state providers would have to cease treatments by next spring. Some lawmakers sought to include a child abuse portion in the legislation that would leave parents open to civil penalties if they supported a transgender child seeking gender-affirming care, but the measure was dropped before the bill's final passage.

Whether the injunction gets put into place or not is almost beside the point, which is to use the power of government to intimidate and demumanize trans people.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

The GOP got massacred in the 2018 midterms despite a considerable map advantage. Had Hillary been POTUS, 2018 would have made 2010 look tame.

You're right to point out that the overt turn toward open fascism hasn't resulted in a strong enough rebuke of the Party by our society, but I wouldn't say there have been no consequences either. And while it's also true that the media and the Dems don't treat the GOP with even a fraction of the open contempt and justified hatred that is warranted, Trump is under multiple indictments and may actually go to jail.

Given how much open criminality Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were able to get away with, I think it's safe to say times have changed.

I'm not sure that enough people in the right places have realized times have changed yet, though.

While Trump is under multiple indictments, it isn't for the insurrection or fake electors plot - the DoJ avoided starting any investigations into those until they were shamed into action by the House January 6th committee. He's only under indictment federally for the stolen documents, and even then it seems clear that the Justice department bent over backwards to give him every opportunity to avoid charges and would have let him off if he'd simply returned them all. He's just too much of an arrogant idiot to do so and forced their hand.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Four Dollars posted:

"Government censorship is good actually" is certainly a precedent that will never come back to bite us. Worry not, friends.

Good thing that's not even remotely close to what's happening, then!

Twitter and Facebook are private companies, they are not arms of the government. They pay for the servers and the upkeep of the service their users... use. They are allowed to put terms and conditions for use of their service in place, and they are allowed to remove content which violates those terms. That is not a violation of the First Amendment any more than it would be if I walked into your home preaching bullshit and you asked me to leave - your home is not a public space.

There is nothing illegal about people who happen to work for the government reporting posts to Twitter/Facebook. There is nothing illegal about people who DO NOT work for the government reporting posts to Twitter/Facebook - there's no difference. It's those companies which respond to the report and decide if the content is a violation of their terms of service.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Willa Rogers posted:

It wasn't just "people working for the government reporting posts" though: It was coordinated federal agency working groups having a pipeline to censor speech they considered harmful or undermining with no transparency or oversight.

Sometimes the media people in charge told them to take a hike (as when Schiff tried to get mean things about him taken down); more often they acceded to the government agencies' demands.

It's impossible for it to be censorship, because TWITTER AND FACEBOOK ARE NOT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. In addition, it makes no difference where the reports of ToS violating posts came from, it doesn't change the fact that the posts violated the terms of service.

Asking for something and ordering something are very different things. If the media people were able to tell the government to take a hike and face no retaliation, that's not the government compelling them to do something.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Main Paineframe posted:

In practice, most judges are going to be understanding of the fact that a 100-word limit substantially limits how specific and detailed the summary can get. They're not going to treat it as an effective cap on the complexity of the rules themselves.

That "most" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting considering some of the utter whackjob rulings coming from some federal judges these days. It's a guarantee that people will judge-shop for some of the worst offenders to overturn regulations based on a word limit.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender
Despite being surrounded by ocean and getting a lot of rain, parts of the islands are actually quite dry. I think it has to do with a combination of the prevailing winds which blow rain storms and the rainshadow produced by the volcanic peaks. And also because of the change of the seasons moving heat around, they only get most of their rain at certain points of the year.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

PeterWeller posted:

I don't really see a difference for myself between buying a streaming movie or one on a disc. They're both going to require me to have further infrastructure. And if I have to buy a movie again because the streaming service it's on went out of business, I don't see that being so different from having to buy a movie again because my old VCR broke.

Seriously?

Here's a difference. You don't need to buy a separate DVD player for each different studio which produces the movie. You also shouldn't need to buy a new DVD player once a month in perpetuity and if you stop your DVD player, all your DVD's disintegrate. Your DVD player also doesn't pause to buffer every once in a while if too many of your neighbours are also watching movies.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

BiggerBoat posted:

Yeah, but perusing the Freep thread I see a lot of suggestions to stay home and not to publicly protest any of Trump's arrests since it's a DoJ setup and poo poo. Yet, the turnout for all these arrests has been comically small, suggesting that people did, in fact, stay home. So where are all the Antifa BML plants?

Pointing out factual contradictions isn't going to be a magic bullet to "gotcha" the fascists, the contradictions are the point of fascism.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender
Polls have proven to be worthless in recent years. It's baffling to see so much concern over poll results (especially ones with such a high margin of error) a full year before the election, before anyone is paying attention.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

JosefStalinator posted:

Not sure why people like to just shitpost about how POLLS DONT MATTER LOL when it's literally a thing you can measure and observe the error of.

Is it within the final 21 days of the 2024 Presidential Election?

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

BUUNNI posted:

The American people are already being destroyed by their own government and their own nation's rotten ideology, evidently.

Do you really believe that the US cares about the lives of marginalized peoples?

Do you think the collapse of government and the loss of the government's monopoly on force - since that was the context of Main Painframe's statements which you're arguing against - will decrease the number of deaths and improve the lives of marginalized people?

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

BougieBitch posted:

Edit: the political polarization thing may also matter a bit, but it isn't new even according to your own chart - there's just a persistent 25% of naysayers or yeasayers or whatever that effectively restrict the possible range out outcomes for polling to 15-85% and that's baked in.

That may be the case for the world in general, but it's clear from the wild swings that the polarization in the U.S. is having an excessive impact on polling results. I suspect that the cause of that is the right-wing propaganda machine which has made it normal to reject facts which don't fit with preferred political beliefs (and the mirrored response on the left is a reaction).

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Gripweed posted:

That's the worst plan I've ever heard. Giving one party unquestioned dominance of the government is not going to lead to them being more reactive to the needs of the people. Whatever factions form within the party, there's no reason to assume it would be center vs left, or even based on ideology at all. They're more likely to be based around intra-party politics or powerbases.

That's a tomorrow problem - and one which would resolve itself. The today problem is that the Republican party today is an increasingly fascist, increasingly anti-democratic party which is an existential threat to democracy in the United States. They're not a counter-balancing force, they're a destabilizing force. As long as they keep winning enough power and influence to keep preventing positive change from happening, that feeds their narrative that government doesn't work, which feeds anti-electorism sentiment and discourages people from seeking change.

So yes, single-party Democratic control for a few cycles would absolutely be a good thing. It would not be a permanent fix, but nothing is. It would take time for the money men to decide that throwing more money at Republicans was a losing cause and move en masse to target Democratic candidates to influence.

There is absolutely zero benefit to anyone except chuds and the 1% for keeping the Republican party electorally viable enough to be able to write or block federal legislation.

Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Dec 11, 2023

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Mantis42 posted:

Honestly the Dems should just cut Trump a deal and offer him a pardon for everything in return for not running. I don't know if you could actually hold him to that, though.

In my opinion, that would be such a catastrophic show of moral cowardice and a hollowing out of the justice system that there wouldn't be enough of it left to save the country. It would effectively be endorsing the notion that literally nothing any Republican president does could ever be considered going too far. It would at best save the country from Trump, in exchange for surrendering it to the whims of any future Republican elected president. Any future Republican "president" could do anything they want in office, secure in the notion there are no legal consequences they could face.

I think that price is too high to pay.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender
EDIT: Nevermind, this argument has been had before and it's probably edging into "martial law".

Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 23, 2023

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Gripweed posted:

I would be perfectly happy to see both of those barriers removed.

You can't just casually take scissors and cut that part out of the Constitution without risking other people taking scissors to other parts they don't like, including some parts which you probably DO like.

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

Dull Fork posted:

Selec had a good response to specific examples. I could add some other ones as well. All democratic senators are members of the democratic party, which has a major hand in fundraising. Money is the prime pressure point I hadn't seen mentioned. Threaten to cut off their fundraising opportunities, bribe them with money, positions of power, have debaucherous parties that also happened to include video evidence of Manchin doin straight lines of coke. Hell, fabricate said videos, there are so many ways one could try to ruin a politicians reputation to force them to vote in a way you want. Have a group of protesters follow them around, find someone willing to make salacious claims about them... There are SO many dirty tricks that have been used on politicians throughout the course of history that it is a lack of imagination to say that a politician is so latched on to their ideals they can't be manipulated or forced away from them.

All of that is without even mentioning a more direct line, everyone wants to continue living comfortably in safety, is that not a pressure point, Jaxyon? (Mods, I am not advocating for this specifically, I am responding to the question that asked what pressure points exist that could make someone act against their will.)

1) Cutting off Fundraising? Manchin isn't running for re-election, and even if he wasn't, he's not likely to win re-election, fundraising or not. Not to mention cutting off funds will result only in a Republican winning the seat, which is a worse outcome for the Democratic party.
2) Just straight up hand Manchin a fat bribe? Ignoring the fact that seems illegal (and thus would require whoever the briber is to put their own neck on the line), how big a bribe would it take and who would be providing the funds?
3) Attempted Blackmail? Also illegal and it relies on the mark being foolish enough to willingly perform an act worthy of being blackmailed, and to do so in an area they do not control. This is unreliable.
4) Blackmail with falsified video? Illegal and for that to stick, you need to be damned sure they couldn't provide an alibi for themselves. Risky. And again, you'd need someone to put their neck on the line for this.
5) Follow them around with protestors? Has that traditionally worked against Republican politicians? They'd just get a security detail or the police if they got too close, and if not, they'd elude or ignore the protestors.
6) More false claims? Once again, to get those to stick, you'd need to make sure the mark can't disprove the false claims.
7) Threatening physical harm or death? If Manchin's seat becomes free, it'll become R, so that threat is a weak bluff. Threatening non-lethal physical violence runs the risk of Manchin just retiring on the spot and handing the seat over to the Republicans.

Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 19, 2024

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

A big flaming stink posted:

Okay I think we're getting trapped in the weeds of the hypothetical of them just wanting to be paid. Ansarallah has been shouting to the heavens for weeks that they are doing this because of the genocide on Palestinians and they are targeting only ships abetting Israel's trade, and now of course the people who have shot at them.

They have been extremely clear about what their goals with these attacks are, and at this point I think it borders on farce to claim they're actually going for a secret payout.

Many people have repeatedly told you about the fact that the Houthis have been engaging in piracy for many, many years well before the current conflict in Gaza, a fact you have conveniently ignored. Can you please explain why you think that a bunch of pirates are being completely genuine and honest about their motives?

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

12 years a lurker posted:

It's unfair to people going through the legal process, and worse for the country than letting people in based on their ability to assimilate and contribute. I'd like a more merit based system, but if we're not going to have that still prefer lottery based or family preference than whomever manages to get across the border and not get caught for a few years wins. We were built on immigration and it's a good thing in moderation, but there is only so much capacity economically, culturally, and politically and proverbial 'slots' shouldn't go to those willing to flout the rules.

What is "cultural capacity", and what do you mean by too much immigration exceeding it? Can you put a number on what too much immigrant culture is?

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

mobby_6kl posted:

Obviously longer distance=more difficult, but wouldn't all of these released categories be able to move around, for example?

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4206842-bidens-catch-and-release-system-for-illegal-border-crossers-is-a-failure/

Also probably not a large fraction but Texas is just flying people to places like Chicago or NY for free. I looked into it when I was in NYC last year and you can just take a direct Greyhound bus to Montreal.

Canada and the US have something called the "Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement," which means that refugees which pass through a country considered "safe" to reach one of them are unable to claim asylum unless they meet a specific exception.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Stabbey_the_Clown
Sep 21, 2002

Are... are you quite sure you really want to say that?
Taco Defender

FistEnergy posted:

Trump's theoretical future horribleness does not outweigh the actual horribleness Biden is doing right now, day after day.

I cannot agree with that. This is not merely theory - Trump has a track record from his time in office, and it's most definitely not supportive of Palestinians. It's not 2016, no one can pretend like Trump is just some unknown quantity, or that a second Trump term would make things somehow be less horrible for the Palestinians.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply