|
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 00:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:40 xDaunt wrote: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.
So what are you rejecting? The studies themselves or the inferences drawn from them? And if it's the inferences, which ones do you reject?
|
|
|
On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. 
One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed.
Thankfully Trump might see this one through.
|
On September 07 2017 00:54 farvacola wrote:
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.
This is an excellent metric that I will cite in the future. I'm impressed at its ability to simultaneously praise in one direction and throw shade in the other.
On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through.
100% sure it was the AG threatening to challenge the law and Sessions being unwilling to defend it that caused Trump to punt it to Congress. He didn't want the problem, so he kicked the problem back to congress to deal with. Since that is very unlikely given the make up of congress right now, its likely Trump will have to make his own DACA in 6 months or deal with all the bad press associated with one of these folks getting deported. Because ICE is dumb enough to do it.
|
On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through.
Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job?
Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves?
|
On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves?
actually we have a third branch of the government who limits the power of the presidents EOs. I imagine in advocating for literal despots we'd start by eliminating the Judiciary, but apparently Danglars is happy to accuse us of that for advocating for immigrants.
|
United States41995 Posts
If I recall correctly Danglars thinks the SCOTUS is in on the conspiracy to end constitutional rule.
|
On September 07 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On September 07 2017 00:40 xDaunt wrote: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. So what are you rejecting? The studies themselves or the inferences drawn from them? And if it's the inferences, which ones do you reject?
The implied inference that the studies wouldn't apply to black people as well and the logical disconnect for using them as some sort of argument against the concept of white privilege.
|
On September 07 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
If I recall correctly Danglars thinks the SCOTUS is in on the conspiracy to end constitutional rule.
well it's a good thing we have a congress who works diligently on filling those seats. god bless danglars for working with the other party on pen and phone to keep this from happening.
hope i got that quote right. oh good i did. i have no idea what it means though.
|
On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through.
Wait, so you'd rather have Congress AND the Executive not do anything and let things go to shit? I am in awe of your immense respect for the Constitution to the point you'd rather see a good chunk of our economy thrown into confusion and turmoilrather than stepping into uncertain legal territory.
|
On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves?
If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop.
|
United States41995 Posts
On September 07 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves? If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop.
So you think Congress secretly knows Obama's DACA instructions to USCIS were unconstitutional but they're also in on it?
|
or maybe, as there always is, there's a middle ground and that's where the right answer lies. but if you're stuck with 'EO's are unconstitutional when i say so' you're right, you probably won't find it.
|
On September 07 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves? If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop.
That is the opposite of how impeachment works. Signing an unconstitutional executive order is not a high crime. If it was, there would be no point to executive orders or challenging them in the court. Teddy Roosevelt does not approve.
|
On September 07 2017 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Wait, so you'd rather have Congress AND the Executive not do anything and let things go to shit? I am in awe of your immense respect for the Constitution to the point you'd rather see a good chunk of our economy thrown into confusion and turmoilrather than stepping into uncertain legal territory.
If you don't like how your Congressman has voted, vote him out. If you're unsatisfied with multiple factions, pen your editorial, start a group, lobby nationally. Violating the constitution because you don't like the job your elected representatives are doing is a recipe for lawlessness. It's as simple as that. You want a new constitutional amendment that splits Article 1 Section 8 powers beyond Congress, I'm all ears. You're trashing the process because you don't like chaos and forget that trashing the process is worse chaos.
|
On September 07 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves? If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop.
Congress can prove him wrong by acting.
Why has the Republican congress not acted?
Maybe that means they are ok with it but didn't want to dirty their hands on it themselves. Now they can reap the benefits while blaming Obama for it.
Or are you seriously trying to pretend like Congress has been doing its job and Obama overreached on a subject that Congress had under control?
|
On September 07 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Wait, so you'd rather have Congress AND the Executive not do anything and let things go to shit? I am in awe of your immense respect for the Constitution to the point you'd rather see a good chunk of our economy thrown into confusion and turmoilrather than stepping into uncertain legal territory. If you don't like how your Congressman has voted, vote him out. If you're unsatisfied with multiple factions, pen your editorial, start a group, lobby nationally. Violating the constitution because you don't like the job your elected representatives are doing is a recipe for lawlessness. It's as simple as that. You want a new constitutional amendment that splits Article 1 Section 8 powers beyond Congress, I'm all ears. You're trashing the process because you don't like chaos and forget that trashing the process is worse chaos.
I can only imagine the anxiety you would have felt if you were around during the civil rights movement. They did not take your advice.
|
On September 07 2017 01:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:On September 07 2017 00:40 xDaunt wrote: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. So what are you rejecting? The studies themselves or the inferences drawn from them? And if it's the inferences, which ones do you reject? The implied inference that the studies wouldn't apply to black people as well and the logical disconnect for using them as some sort of argument against the concept of white privilege.
I don't think anyone would argue that the concept of genetic intellectual heredity does not apply equally to all races. However, where things get controversial is when people start fully applying the concept and asking questions such as whether there is any significant differentiation on this point between the races. I personally think that it's all much ado about nothing.
|
United States41995 Posts
On September 07 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Wait, so you'd rather have Congress AND the Executive not do anything and let things go to shit? I am in awe of your immense respect for the Constitution to the point you'd rather see a good chunk of our economy thrown into confusion and turmoilrather than stepping into uncertain legal territory. If you don't like how your Congressman has voted, vote him out. If you're unsatisfied with multiple factions, pen your editorial, start a group, lobby nationally. Violating the constitution because you don't like the job your elected representatives are doing is a recipe for lawlessness. It's as simple as that. You want a new constitutional amendment that splits Article 1 Section 8 powers beyond Congress, I'm all ears. You're trashing the process because you don't like chaos and forget that trashing the process is worse chaos.
Third explanation, perhaps lawlessness isn't simply anything except your interpretation of the constitution. Perhaps there are interpretations of the constitution other than yours which aren't just complete anarchy. Like the one the SCOTUS is using, for example.
I believe in a process that allows the POTUS to issue guidance to the executive and trusts the SCOTUS to limit him. It may not be in line with your interpretation but that does not make my process completely lawless.
|
On September 07 2017 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: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. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Wait, so you'd rather have Congress AND the Executive not do anything and let things go to shit? I am in awe of your immense respect for the Constitution to the point you'd rather see a good chunk of our economy thrown into confusion and turmoilrather than stepping into uncertain legal territory. If you don't like how your Congressman has voted, vote him out. If you're unsatisfied with multiple factions, pen your editorial, start a group, lobby nationally. Violating the constitution because you don't like the job your elected representatives are doing is a recipe for lawlessness. It's as simple as that. You want a new constitutional amendment that splits Article 1 Section 8 powers beyond Congress, I'm all ears. You're trashing the process because you don't like chaos and forget that trashing the process is worse chaos. I can only imagine the anxiety you would have felt if you were around during the civil rights movement. They did not take your advice.
i'm fairly certain we can't get a straight answer on the actual problem at hand here because it doesn't concern him. whether the immigrants get deported or not isn't the issue here- it's executive overreach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
