|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 07 2017 00:28 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:
I mean the ideal is Congress does it, but you know if they don't and you don't like that, you've got this extra-constitutional end run where you write the laws yourself and blame Congress.
I privately hope Trump uses this logic to refuse to enforce tax law on top earners because they're taxed too much. I mean, it would be ideal if Congress changes the tax law, but that requires Congress to do something, which is why we need this shaky solution in the first place. Trump would then truly be Obama's successor. so do you prefer if we have an inept congress that's incapable of passing legislation that real people instead suffer? or that we reinstate DACA until such time that we have acceptable legislation? and i mean joke or not, likening the issue to rich peoples greed is just bad. disheartening, even in this political landscape.
I'd prefer Congress to write the laws. Your feelings isn't a sound strategy for undermining constitutional separation of powers. Separately, the legal basis in both cases is identical.
|
On September 07 2017 00:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:28 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:
I mean the ideal is Congress does it, but you know if they don't and you don't like that, you've got this extra-constitutional end run where you write the laws yourself and blame Congress.
I privately hope Trump uses this logic to refuse to enforce tax law on top earners because they're taxed too much. I mean, it would be ideal if Congress changes the tax law, but that requires Congress to do something, which is why we need this shaky solution in the first place. Trump would then truly be Obama's successor. so do you prefer if we have an inept congress that's incapable of passing legislation that real people instead suffer? or that we reinstate DACA until such time that we have acceptable legislation? and i mean joke or not, likening the issue to rich peoples greed is just bad. disheartening, even in this political landscape. I'd prefer Congress to write the laws. Your feelings isn't a sound strategy for undermining constitutional separation of powers. Separately, the legal basis in both cases is identical.
it would be identical legal basis to anything you want to make up and propose to trump to sign that you don't think congress can pass. any reason you chose to equate the ultra rich getting more money to people trying to live?
i think we all understand congress writing the law would be best. you said so earlier. but in the reality of the situation do you have a preference? apologies in advance if that was the true answer to the question- that instead we start deporting these people. i'm not sure if you had been answering to that affect or bypassing the reality.
|
Someone remind me, is xDaunt the lawyer or Danglars?
|
On September 07 2017 00:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:28 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:
I mean the ideal is Congress does it, but you know if they don't and you don't like that, you've got this extra-constitutional end run where you write the laws yourself and blame Congress.
I privately hope Trump uses this logic to refuse to enforce tax law on top earners because they're taxed too much. I mean, it would be ideal if Congress changes the tax law, but that requires Congress to do something, which is why we need this shaky solution in the first place. Trump would then truly be Obama's successor. so do you prefer if we have an inept congress that's incapable of passing legislation that real people instead suffer? or that we reinstate DACA until such time that we have acceptable legislation? and i mean joke or not, likening the issue to rich peoples greed is just bad. disheartening, even in this political landscape. I'd prefer Congress to write the laws. Your feelings isn't a sound strategy for undermining constitutional separation of powers. Separately, the legal basis in both cases is identical.
But what if congress fails to pass this law and these people start getting deported? After trusting the US government to give them a path to citizenship and handing over all their information to do so.
|
United States43964 Posts
On September 07 2017 00:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Someone remind me, is xDaunt the lawyer or Danglars?
There's no real evidence for either of them.
|
On September 07 2017 00:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Someone remind me, is xDaunt the lawyer or Danglars?
Xdaunt. You can tell because he constantly tries to pull all discussions areas that favor his arguments, even if the path there is tortured beyond belief.
On September 07 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Someone remind me, is xDaunt the lawyer or Danglars? There's no real evidence for either of them.
Come on now. As someone who works for lawyers, Xdaunt’s ability to leverage legal knowledge and selectively omit parts of the knowledge is the cornerstone of being a lawyer.
|
On September 07 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:14 Sermokala wrote:
Wouldn't the people who belive intelligence is genetic be for racial equality and supporting the concept of white privilege? If you truly belive intelegence is primarily genetic then logically you belive that black people have the same chance for greater intellectual impact in society but that it's being supressed by the current society. That you regognize that white privilege is aceptance on how society has and is repressing those genetics the same as your genetics only beacuse of the color of their skin.
Also didn't the memo get passed that I was bunk years ago? Depends upon which people you're talking about. White supremacists certainly don't take that approach.
Which Is why I don't buy it as anything but an approach for white supremacy or at the least thinly veiled racism trying to hide in conservative legitimacy.
|
On September 07 2017 00:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 00:14 Sermokala wrote:
Wouldn't the people who belive intelligence is genetic be for racial equality and supporting the concept of white privilege? If you truly belive intelegence is primarily genetic then logically you belive that black people have the same chance for greater intellectual impact in society but that it's being supressed by the current society. That you regognize that white privilege is aceptance on how society has and is repressing those genetics the same as your genetics only beacuse of the color of their skin.
Also didn't the memo get passed that I was bunk years ago? Depends upon which people you're talking about. White supremacists certainly don't take that approach. Which Is why I don't buy it as anything but an approach for white supremacy or at the least thinly veiled racism trying to hide in conservative legitimacy.
Don't buy what? The studies show that there is a very high correlation between IQ and genetics in teens and adults.
|
I 'believe' in genetic intelligence because it's pretty factual, although not completely fundamentally understood yet (that's why I used pretty).
I also believe in racial equality and that everyone should be judged on their own merits.
White privilege has its roots in socio-economical infrastructure and it's going to take a long time before the playing fields are equalized, but we've come a long way already. Just a little bit further to go. I think in 2-3 generations it'll be pretty equal across the board.
|
On September 07 2017 00:32 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:29 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:28 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:
I mean the ideal is Congress does it, but you know if they don't and you don't like that, you've got this extra-constitutional end run where you write the laws yourself and blame Congress.
I privately hope Trump uses this logic to refuse to enforce tax law on top earners because they're taxed too much. I mean, it would be ideal if Congress changes the tax law, but that requires Congress to do something, which is why we need this shaky solution in the first place. Trump would then truly be Obama's successor. so do you prefer if we have an inept congress that's incapable of passing legislation that real people instead suffer? or that we reinstate DACA until such time that we have acceptable legislation? and i mean joke or not, likening the issue to rich peoples greed is just bad. disheartening, even in this political landscape. I'd prefer Congress to write the laws. Your feelings isn't a sound strategy for undermining constitutional separation of powers. Separately, the legal basis in both cases is identical. it would be identical legal basis to anything you want to make up and propose to trump to sign that you don't think congress can pass. any reason you chose to equate the ultra rich getting more money to people trying to live? i think we all understand congress writing the law would be best. you said so earlier. but in the reality of the situation do you have a preference? apologies in advance if that was the true answer to the question- that instead we start deporting these people. i'm not sure if you had been answering to that affect or bypassing the reality.
If you understand Congress is supposed to write laws, but aren't willing to do anything to another party with a pen and a phone, you don't really think Congress is supposed to write laws. The trick is that the president gets to decide if it's the case that Congress refuses to act or if Congress's refusal is due to veto or prefers unchanged laws. I'd say that's a recipe for tyranny, and Obama fucking paved the road to it.
|
On September 07 2017 00:40 Uldridge wrote:
I 'believe' in genetic intelligence because it's pretty factual, although not completely fundamentally understood yet (that's why I used pretty).
I also believe in racial equality and that everyone should be judged on their own merits.
White privilege has its roots in socio-economical infrastructure and it's going to take a long time before the playing fields are equalized, but we've come a long way already. Just a little bit further to go. I think in 2-3 generations it'll be pretty equal across the board.
I'll come back and quote you on this in 40-60 years (flaunting all my privilege except my male privilege by expecting to still be alive then).
|
Thanks, Danglars has been posting fairly frequently on things being unprecedented legally, and I keep forgetting if he's speaking from legal experience, knowledge of law or just "I read this somewhere and it doesn't sound right".
When he's saying things are "extra-constitutional", I'm guessing it means it is yet another of those perfectly-legal-but-no-one-thought-it-would-really-happen things again?
|
On September 07 2017 00:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Someone remind me, is xDaunt the lawyer or Danglars?
I hope you're a lawyer if you're with the crowd defending the use of feelings to determine constitutional authority.
|
On September 07 2017 00:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Thanks, Danglars has been posting fairly frequently on things being unprecedented legally, and I keep forgetting if he's speaking from legal experience, knowledge of law or just "I read this somewhere and it doesn't sound right".
When he's saying things are "extra-constitutional", I'm guessing it means it is yet another of those perfectly-legal-but-no-one-thought-it-would-really-happen things again?
It's seven articles long with less than 30 amendments. Quick read; I'd recommend it.
|
is anyone here saying that DACA was solid/ not squishy from a legal perspective? no, and so there's no real reason to be arguing about that.
but on the other hand, was DACA a stopgap measure that was in the public interest? arguably yes (or no).
besides, the supreme court has managed to put out some fairly convoluted cases in order to rule in favor of something that at face value might not be constitutional. of course, someone might start decrying "judicial activism!" if in some hypothetical case they ruled in favor of DACA. 
|
On September 07 2017 00:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:36 Sermokala wrote:On September 07 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 00:14 Sermokala wrote:
Wouldn't the people who belive intelligence is genetic be for racial equality and supporting the concept of white privilege? If you truly belive intelegence is primarily genetic then logically you belive that black people have the same chance for greater intellectual impact in society but that it's being supressed by the current society. That you regognize that white privilege is aceptance on how society has and is repressing those genetics the same as your genetics only beacuse of the color of their skin.
Also didn't the memo get passed that I was bunk years ago? Depends upon which people you're talking about. White supremacists certainly don't take that approach. Which Is why I don't buy it as anything but an approach for white supremacy or at the least thinly veiled racism trying to hide in conservative legitimacy. Don't buy what? The studies show that there is a very high correlation between IQ and genetics in teens and adults.
Beacuse they use it as an argument against white privilege specifically peddling "smart privilege" or some other genetic superiority. If anything these arguments support the promotion of the concept of white privilege while giving you a weird recollection to eugenics arguments and how whiteness is genetic.
|
On September 07 2017 00:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Thanks, Danglars has been posting fairly frequently on things being unprecedented legally, and I keep forgetting if he's speaking from legal experience, knowledge of law or just "I read this somewhere and it doesn't sound right".
When he's saying things are "extra-constitutional", I'm guessing it means it is yet another of those perfectly-legal-but-no-one-thought-it-would-really-happen things again?
yes. the noone thought it would happen thing; for the most part at least. (or sometimes just a known thing that routinely happens, but someone decides to object to for partisan points) danglars has no legal experience.
also he foolishly puts all the blame on obama like the partisan hack he is. rather than acknowledging that it's been an ongoing thing over many presidencies of both parties for decades (and to some extent centuries); and that it's been fueled by the inability of congress to do its job.
|
United States43964 Posts
On September 07 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Thanks, Danglars has been posting fairly frequently on things being unprecedented legally, and I keep forgetting if he's speaking from legal experience, knowledge of law or just "I read this somewhere and it doesn't sound right".
When he's saying things are "extra-constitutional", I'm guessing it means it is yet another of those perfectly-legal-but-no-one-thought-it-would-really-happen things again? It's seven articles long with less than 30 amendments. Quick read; I'd recommend it.
When you post things like this I can't help but imagine you shouting about gold fringes and how you do not consent to create joinder with people.
Presumably Obama had some sort of lawyer look at the problem before he asked the USCIS to give the dreamers SSNs and check that he was able to do that. But apparently you, with your quick read, know better.
|
As a general rule, the likelihood that someone is a lawyer/well studied in constitutional law is inversely proportional to the number of times they bring up the concept of constitutionality.
Notice that the daunt man almost never does it.
|
On September 07 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:32 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 00:29 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:28 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:
I mean the ideal is Congress does it, but you know if they don't and you don't like that, you've got this extra-constitutional end run where you write the laws yourself and blame Congress.
I privately hope Trump uses this logic to refuse to enforce tax law on top earners because they're taxed too much. I mean, it would be ideal if Congress changes the tax law, but that requires Congress to do something, which is why we need this shaky solution in the first place. Trump would then truly be Obama's successor. so do you prefer if we have an inept congress that's incapable of passing legislation that real people instead suffer? or that we reinstate DACA until such time that we have acceptable legislation? and i mean joke or not, likening the issue to rich peoples greed is just bad. disheartening, even in this political landscape. I'd prefer Congress to write the laws. Your feelings isn't a sound strategy for undermining constitutional separation of powers. Separately, the legal basis in both cases is identical. it would be identical legal basis to anything you want to make up and propose to trump to sign that you don't think congress can pass. any reason you chose to equate the ultra rich getting more money to people trying to live? i think we all understand congress writing the law would be best. you said so earlier. but in the reality of the situation do you have a preference? apologies in advance if that was the true answer to the question- that instead we start deporting these people. i'm not sure if you had been answering to that affect or bypassing the reality. If you understand Congress is supposed to write laws, but aren't willing to do anything to another party with a pen and a phone, you don't really think Congress is supposed to write laws. The trick is that the president gets to decide if it's the case that Congress refuses to act or if Congress's refusal is due to veto or prefers unchanged laws. I'd say that's a recipe for tyranny, and Obama fucking paved the road to it.
what are you replying to here? i'm not a congressman. i'm trying to have a discussion on what's the right thing to do here and as far as i can tell this is a rant to your local congressman without any regard for the post quoted.
i mean if you're not looking to respond i understand but you don't need to quote me and correct me on things i'm not saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
