|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2019 07:21 Danglars wrote:
The House bill of additional funding for ICE/CBP passed in a party-line vote, with many additional regulations and a small amount of money for detention facilities. The Senate version passed 84-8 with a heftier amount to house detained migrants. Only a couple days ago, Pelosi promised to go into reconciliation on the differences. Today, she changed her mind to pass the Senate version, much to the consternation of AOC. Regardless of whatever political motivations contributing, I applaud her decision to hasten resources to overcapacity ICE facilities
I don't think that's going to reflect on her the way she imagines in the grand scheme of things. Rather than the short term political ramifications I think history will judge her more harshly for helping facilitate what will be historically horrific border policy rather than ameliorating it.
|
On June 28 2019 07:21 Danglars wrote:The House bill of additional funding for ICE/CBP passed in a party-line vote, with many additional regulations and a small amount of money for detention facilities. The Senate version passed 84-8 with a heftier amount to house detained migrants. Only a couple days ago, Pelosi promised to go into reconciliation on the differences. Today, she changed her mind to pass the Senate version, much to the consternation of AOC. Regardless of whatever political motivations contributing, I applaud her decision to hasten resources to overcapacity ICE facilities https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1144333854595080195
It was the right call politically, but I wonder whether the leftist base will accept it. Pelosi has now sharply diverged with her base on two big issues: 1) this one, and 2) impeachment (this was also the right call, as evidenced by Nadler's ongoing bungling of related hearings). It won't be long before people begin openly questioning her position as speaker.
|
|
|
On June 28 2019 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
It won't be long before people begin openly questioning her position as speaker. This has actually been going on for a long time now, but I could see the situation intensifying quickly. There was a lot of pushback to her being House leader again in the first place and the calls for her to step aside have been slowly getting louder for the past few months. The more left-leaning wing of the Democrats and their supporters often talk about how she and Schumer are both completely out of touch and aren't suited to deal with the modern Republican Party. In particular, I see a lot of complaints that Pelosi and Schumer take the Republicans at their word for a lot of things, and then what ends up happening is the Republicans will promise Pelosi and/or Schumer one thing and then immediately turn around and do another, leaving Pelosi and Schumer in a disadvantageous position and/or looking really weak/bad.
It's the reason why the Republicans take some of the newer, younger Democrats like AOC so much more seriously than Pelosi and the old guard. The newer Democrats by default assume people like McConnell are acting in bad faith or have ulterior motives until proven otherwise, and it has given them much stronger negotiation positions as a result (e.g. How AOC dealt with Ted Cruz before they decided to work together on a bill to prevent congresspeople from immediately becoming lobbyists once they leave office. She put forward a bunch of requirements that basically would stop any bad faith changes to the bill from happening and he had to agree to them or she would back out). Whether you agree with the policies/positions of people like AOC or not, it should be pretty easy to see that they have been much more effective at messaging and leveraging their positions than the establishment Democrats who are too afraid to rock the boat.
Having a position on something and being able to defend it makes you much more believable as a politician than being someone who simply tries to please everyone at once, often ending up pleasing no-one as a result. The Republicans figured this out years ago, and the newer Democrats have as well. The older establishment Democrats seem to refuse to acknowledge this at all.
|
|
|
|
|
United States42956 Posts
It's not great but afterwards he apologized and explained that he was unfamiliar with the historical significance of the quote so maybe he's just stupid. It's not like he quoted Mussolini and then when someone pointed out to him that Mussolini was a bad guy insisted that he was familiar with the quote and with Mussolini but he's actually a big fan of theirs.
|
I think it would have been pretty bad ass if he didn't back off it personally. I feel like if we can have Andrew Jackson on our money there's nothing wrong with Che. Granted that was probably the worst possible audience for that lol.
|
You are aware that we are trying to get rid of Andrew Jackson, right?
|
On June 28 2019 09:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You are aware that we are trying to get rid of Andrew Jackson, right?
What's the hold up?
|
Canada11363 Posts
On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:
The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times.
And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean?
It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true.
On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to have something in common with the Taliban? They agree with you!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban.
On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in.
It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1
Question 13.
|
United States42956 Posts
On June 28 2019 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 09:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You are aware that we are trying to get rid of Andrew Jackson, right? What's the hold up?
Old white people stick together.
|
On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13.
It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ...
Like it was straight up made to be racist
|
Biden sounds like he's rambling.
|
And the first dodge went to Biden.
Say what you want about bernie but he owned up that taxes will go up in order to get healthcare
|
United States42956 Posts
On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13.
A factual question does not mean there is no context. The question "what were you wearing?" is unrelated to "did you consent to sex?" and yet we all know what they mean by the question in the context of a rape case.
Consider the following context
1) The primary purpose of the US census is to get an accurate count of population, not citizenship, as made explicitly clear in the constitution where they specify that all people, regardless of status, are to be counted. This is so that non citizens are afforded political representation. They don't get to pick a representative but they do get to have representation.
2) As there are limited numbers of representatives this is a zero sum game. The more non citizens are counted the more representation they have. The fewer are counted the less representation they have.
3) Non citizens are disproportionately likely to not respond to the census based upon the citizenship question. The citizenship question will therefore strip the non citizen population of their political representation as afforded to them by the constitution.
4) Non citizens are primarily immigrants and immigrants are primarily not of white European backgrounds.
This question will result in an unconstitutional shift in representation away from brown people. That is the indisputable heart of the matter. You can't separate the question from the context and insist that it's not possible for a yes/no question to be racist.
|
I'm interested in seeing how Hickenlooper is accepted by democrats. I doubt it will be particularly well.
|
Bernie is bringing the red meat. It's going to serve him very well in the primary.
|
lol who in their right mind goes after Bernie for healthcare. Just no dude, stop.
|
Christ, these moderators are horrible. The parties should just delegate moderation responsibility exclusively to Chris Wallace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
