|
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 09 2018 09:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:19 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
The bolded isn't strictly true. Someone who doesn't care about rule of law could still accuse conservatives of hypocrisy if they nominally supported it and then didn't act like it. I can accuse a Mormon of hypocrisy for secretly drinking coffee, even if I unapologetically drink coffee myself. Personally, I didn't like Obama's move, but iirc the ADF or someone wound up handling the defense instead, which seemed like a better outcome anyway. If a similar thing happens here (where a qualified group who actually supports the ACA defends it instead) I think that's not too bad an outcome. In general I think we need a better system for when a controversial law that the current administration opposes gets challenged in court. Even if the administration elects to defend it, it's hard to imagine them being the best possible defenders. its a bit of a weak argument to say "hey you are ok with this thing i think is ok even though you said you didnt like it before" especially when its being thrown at people who arent directly responsible for the act itself. so yeah you are right, even though i haven't seen anyone advance such a limited critique. it always seem to come packaged with outrage over trump wrapped in some vague legal argument about norms
Why is it a weak argument? If rule of law is supposedly foundational to conservatism, and then suddenly conservatives don't give a shit about it, that's pretty discrediting. I don't remember Obama ever wacing poetic about how core rule of law is to his ideology, which makes it a bit less discrediting for him not to follow it thoroughly.
If it turned out all the Mormon leaders drank coffee constantly and they only forbid it to members because they owned stock in herbal tea companies or something, that would seem like a pretty strong argument that those leaders are full of shit.
|
On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
I was going to put something sarcastic about nuance in a different post, but here I am writing it as an actual statement. There is nuance. A law explicitly stripping rights from a minority and a law protecting the health and well being of vulnerable Americans are not comparable except that they're both "laws." When you draw an equivalence between Obama not defending the former and Trump not defending the latter, you are implicitly arguing that the laws themselves are comparable. They're not.
|
On June 09 2018 09:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:29 IgnE wrote:On June 09 2018 09:19 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
The bolded isn't strictly true. Someone who doesn't care about rule of law could still accuse conservatives of hypocrisy if they nominally supported it and then didn't act like it. I can accuse a Mormon of hypocrisy for secretly drinking coffee, even if I unapologetically drink coffee myself. Personally, I didn't like Obama's move, but iirc the ADF or someone wound up handling the defense instead, which seemed like a better outcome anyway. If a similar thing happens here (where a qualified group who actually supports the ACA defends it instead) I think that's not too bad an outcome. In general I think we need a better system for when a controversial law that the current administration opposes gets challenged in court. Even if the administration elects to defend it, it's hard to imagine them being the best possible defenders. its a bit of a weak argument to say "hey you are ok with this thing i think is ok even though you said you didnt like it before" especially when its being thrown at people who arent directly responsible for the act itself. so yeah you are right, even though i haven't seen anyone advance such a limited critique. it always seem to come packaged with outrage over trump wrapped in some vague legal argument about norms Why is it a weak argument? If rule of law is supposedly foundational to conservatism, and then suddenly conservatives don't give a shit about it, that's pretty discrediting. I don't remember Obama ever wacing poetic about how core rule of law is to his ideology, which makes it a bit less discrediting for him not to follow it thoroughly. If it turned out all the Mormon leaders drank coffee constantly and they only forbid it to members because they owned stock in herbal tea companies or something, that would seem like a pretty strong argument that those leaders are full of shit.
since when is trump a conservative? or, even more deviously, what if danglars (ala wolfinthesheep's post above) is actually arguing that this is a totally ordinary use of prosecutorial discretion consonant with "rule of law?"
|
On June 09 2018 09:33 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:25 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:58 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma? no, tha'ts incorrect. trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it. likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma. But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it. that's probably you misreading my posts. there's a chance I wrote something wrong too; but more likely you're misreading them. Its not even something to dispute. Your post clearly says that the court granted standing to 16 states to intervene in the case. Are you desputing specific clear points in your post? ok, this is you failing at reading comprehension. you need to read more carefully. I never said obama prohibited others from defending doma. obama didn't leave doma with noone to defend it; others could and did defend it. And it's not possible for obama to prohibit others from defending it even if he wanted to.
This is your reading comprehension failing. I never said you said obama prevented others I simple made the point that your post indicates that there were other parties with standing in trumps case which there weren't in obamas case.
One of domas specific issues in its challenge was that others didnt have standing in defending it. I thought you already knew that.
I planned this exchange out because I know how you refuse to agree on the same argument as the person you argue with. Thats why it's a very very simple thing that a normal person could have responded with "hu I guess thats beside the point but sure" but instead you refuse to argue in good faith like usual.
|
On June 09 2018 09:37 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
I was going to put something sarcastic about nuance in a different post, but here I am writing it as an actual statement. There is nuance. A law explicitly stripping rights from a minority and a law protecting the health and well being of vulnerable Americans are not comparable except that they're both "laws." When you draw an equivalence between Obama not defending the former and Trump not defending the latter, you are implicitly arguing that the laws themselves are comparable. They're not.
psh this is rubbish. you arent even talking about law now. if you want to talk about justice i think ive made my point already and i agree with you, but thats not of much use in this particular argument with people who think justice is something else
|
On June 09 2018 09:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:36 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2018 09:29 IgnE wrote:On June 09 2018 09:19 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
The bolded isn't strictly true. Someone who doesn't care about rule of law could still accuse conservatives of hypocrisy if they nominally supported it and then didn't act like it. I can accuse a Mormon of hypocrisy for secretly drinking coffee, even if I unapologetically drink coffee myself. Personally, I didn't like Obama's move, but iirc the ADF or someone wound up handling the defense instead, which seemed like a better outcome anyway. If a similar thing happens here (where a qualified group who actually supports the ACA defends it instead) I think that's not too bad an outcome. In general I think we need a better system for when a controversial law that the current administration opposes gets challenged in court. Even if the administration elects to defend it, it's hard to imagine them being the best possible defenders. its a bit of a weak argument to say "hey you are ok with this thing i think is ok even though you said you didnt like it before" especially when its being thrown at people who arent directly responsible for the act itself. so yeah you are right, even though i haven't seen anyone advance such a limited critique. it always seem to come packaged with outrage over trump wrapped in some vague legal argument about norms Why is it a weak argument? If rule of law is supposedly foundational to conservatism, and then suddenly conservatives don't give a shit about it, that's pretty discrediting. I don't remember Obama ever wacing poetic about how core rule of law is to his ideology, which makes it a bit less discrediting for him not to follow it thoroughly. If it turned out all the Mormon leaders drank coffee constantly and they only forbid it to members because they owned stock in herbal tea companies or something, that would seem like a pretty strong argument that those leaders are full of shit. since when is trump a conservative? or, even more deviously, what if danglars (ala wolfinthesheep's post above) is actually arguing that this is a totally ordinary use of prosecutorial discretion consonant with "rule of law?"
I should clarify that I'm not calling Danglars a hypocrite. I think that implies bad faith, which I don't think is accurate. I just think he's serving his principles poorly, which I criticize partly because I like rule of law quite a bit, and would like to see people actually advocate it instead of just giving it lip service.
|
On June 09 2018 09:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:05 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust. I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life. There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said. EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread. So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can. There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. You said he and people like him are a threat to your life. You compared him to people that supported the nazis. Your edit is even more explicit in connecting conservatives and nazis by calling conservatives the "ideological heirs to nazis". Danglers gets passionate about a lot of things you're the one thats trying to frame him specifically as a nazi. There is every way to dress up your disagreements with someone that isnt bearly thined appeals to the holocaust to support your stance.
I compared him to people that supported the nazis prior to the holocaust. You were the person I was going to write something sarcastic about nuance to, because you seem to be missing a huge amount of nuance there.
You're also continuing to put words in my mouths. I did not call conservatives ideological heirs to nazis. I called the neonazis, the ones who were marching around with the actual, literal nazi flag in Charlottesville, the ideological heirs to nazis. I didn't say Danglars was one of them, just that he was very enthusiastic about defending them.
Again, you're shoving words in my mouth, metaphorically speaking, to completely change what I'm saying and then argue against that. Stop it. I'm sick of having to choose between leaving your attempts to deflect my statements by twisting them into attacks on my character alone and wasting my time pointing out how you twisted my words into something that you could use to attack my character.
|
On June 09 2018 09:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:05 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust. I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life. There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said. EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread. So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can. There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. You said he and people like him are a threat to your life. You compared him to people that supported the nazis. Your edit is even more explicit in connecting conservatives and nazis by calling conservatives the "ideological heirs to nazis". Danglers gets passionate about a lot of things you're the one thats trying to frame him specifically as a nazi. There is every way to dress up your disagreements with someone that isnt bearly thined appeals to the holocaust to support your stance.
Inb4 Kyadytim gets another warning/banned because people put things in his mouth+ Show Spoiler + GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE GUTTER
|
On June 09 2018 09:34 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. First off, I meant to edit the post I did before that to add the quote, it was meant to be an addition to my point of view, because I cannot provide a first hand experience. I make my assumptions based on what I read, and trying to imagine how different my life would be. Second, he did not accuse reps of being nazi sympathizers. Like, NOT EVEN CLOSE He made a comparison. A comparison of how destructive to other social groups the actions of the republican party are, and how the republican voters enable it, to how people in germany were led to believe that nazism was great, the jews were the problem, and how they enabled one of the biggest atrocities in history. He did not even say all of these germans were ok with the holocaust, I believe they probably weren't but they had no idea what they were actually voting for. Which brings me back to my first post and a point I made there. Society has evolved. Hopefully, in the past 70 years our society has evolved and our problems have become different. I am worried that we are blinded/not seeing the bigger picture/missing something in the peripheral vision. Imagine this: after trump leaves office, we find that thousands of illegal women, children and men were sexually abused while in these detention centers, that some hundreds were sold off by corrupt emigration agents to trafficking rings. Nobody (well, almost nobody) wanted this when they wanted to stop illegal crossings and voted for a man that promised them that. People weren't gassed like the jews were, it doesn't make it any less atrocious. The voters did enable it and they have their share of the blame.
You made a post about how you are a jew. As in that gives you authority on what nazis are and how ideology leads to the holocaust. The comparison was about how republicans are a threat to you and that supporting them is the same.behaviour that led to the holocaust.
You chose to use nazis and the holocause to describe danglers and people like him. That you are a jew and you believe that hes a threat to your life. Even if its not your intent its what you are doing.
This isnt about trump this is about you comparing people to nazis and warning people that supporting trump is the same as people who supported the nazis before the holocaust. Doubling down and explaining how your are right about this and explicitly explaining how you think a holocaust similar event would happen doesnt help your case.
|
On June 09 2018 09:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:37 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
I was going to put something sarcastic about nuance in a different post, but here I am writing it as an actual statement. There is nuance. A law explicitly stripping rights from a minority and a law protecting the health and well being of vulnerable Americans are not comparable except that they're both "laws." When you draw an equivalence between Obama not defending the former and Trump not defending the latter, you are implicitly arguing that the laws themselves are comparable. They're not. psh this is rubbish. you arent even talking about law now. if you want to talk about justice i think ive made my point already and i agree with you, but thats not of much use in this particular argument with people who think justice is something else
See, there's this funny theory about laws, which is that they don't exist in a vacuum, where they can be assessed purely as words on paper. There is no discussion about laws that does not involve how they affect people. That's a discussion processes. In an abstract sense, what Obama and Trump did are kind of similar, because they both assembled their actions out of similar components. That completely ignores the form of the laws, the function of the laws, the history of the President with regard to the laws, the quality of the legal challenges against the laws, and other factors that are a relevant part of the decision and how people assess the decision.
I am concluding that you want to ignore all of those things because if you include them in consideration, it makes arguing your position more difficult. If you want to argue abstract legal process theory outside the context of the US political environment, the thread for discussing current events in US politics is probably not the place to do it.
|
On June 09 2018 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:31 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 09:05 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust. I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life. There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said. EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread. So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can. There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. You said he and people like him are a threat to your life. You compared him to people that supported the nazis. Your edit is even more explicit in connecting conservatives and nazis by calling conservatives the "ideological heirs to nazis". Danglers gets passionate about a lot of things you're the one thats trying to frame him specifically as a nazi. There is every way to dress up your disagreements with someone that isnt bearly thined appeals to the holocaust to support your stance. I compared him to people that supported the nazis prior to the holocaust. You were the person I was going to write something sarcastic about nuance to, because you seem to be missing a huge amount of nuance there. You're also continuing to put words in my mouths. I did not call conservatives ideological heirs to nazis. I called the neonazis, the ones who were marching around with the actual, literal nazi flag in Charlottesville, the ideological heirs to nazis. I didn't say Danglars was one of them, just that he was very enthusiastic about defending them. Again, you're shoving words in my mouth, metaphorically speaking, to completely change what I'm saying and then argue against that. Stop it. I'm sick of having to choose between leaving your attempts to deflect my statements by twisting them into attacks on my character alone and wasting my time pointing out how you twisted my words into something that you could use to attack my character.
Im not making these metaphors for you you're the one who keeps bringing up nazis and the holocaust.
Just say that hes a threat to you and people like you because more expensive coverage and less coverage leads to more deaths. Its a simplier and stronger metaphor that doesn't bring up nazis and the holocaust.
|
On June 09 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:
You made a post about how you are a jew.
...
Who did? In what post?
|
On June 09 2018 09:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 09:31 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 09:05 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust. I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life. There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said. EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread. So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can. There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. You said he and people like him are a threat to your life. You compared him to people that supported the nazis. Your edit is even more explicit in connecting conservatives and nazis by calling conservatives the "ideological heirs to nazis". Danglers gets passionate about a lot of things you're the one thats trying to frame him specifically as a nazi. There is every way to dress up your disagreements with someone that isnt bearly thined appeals to the holocaust to support your stance. I compared him to people that supported the nazis prior to the holocaust. You were the person I was going to write something sarcastic about nuance to, because you seem to be missing a huge amount of nuance there. You're also continuing to put words in my mouths. I did not call conservatives ideological heirs to nazis. I called the neonazis, the ones who were marching around with the actual, literal nazi flag in Charlottesville, the ideological heirs to nazis. I didn't say Danglars was one of them, just that he was very enthusiastic about defending them. Again, you're shoving words in my mouth, metaphorically speaking, to completely change what I'm saying and then argue against that. Stop it. I'm sick of having to choose between leaving your attempts to deflect my statements by twisting them into attacks on my character alone and wasting my time pointing out how you twisted my words into something that you could use to attack my character. Im not making these metaphors for you you're the one who keeps bringing up nazis and the holocaust. Just say that hes a threat to you and people like you because more expensive coverage and less coverage leads to more deaths. Its a simplier and stronger metaphor that doesn't bring up nazis and the holocaust.
Who made you the metaphor police? If you knew what he was saying, why did you accuse him of things he didn’t say?
|
On June 09 2018 09:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:
You made a post about how you are a jew.
... Who did? In what post?
He was trying to reply to me.
I don't even know what to do with this conversation anymore.
I started with "hes a threat to you and people like you because more expensive coverage and less coverage leads to more deaths."
He twisted my words.
I corrected him, and added a comment about the irony of the fact that I've got Jewish ancestry and Danglars literally defends neonazis.
He fixated on my admission of Jewish ancestry, and now I'm apparently posting what I'm posting because I'm Jewish.
EDIT, because why not. I'm not doing it, but there are actual holocaust survivors saying about Trump what Sermakola accuses me of saying about Trump.
http://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965
|
On June 09 2018 09:54 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:41 IgnE wrote:On June 09 2018 09:37 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
I was going to put something sarcastic about nuance in a different post, but here I am writing it as an actual statement. There is nuance. A law explicitly stripping rights from a minority and a law protecting the health and well being of vulnerable Americans are not comparable except that they're both "laws." When you draw an equivalence between Obama not defending the former and Trump not defending the latter, you are implicitly arguing that the laws themselves are comparable. They're not. psh this is rubbish. you arent even talking about law now. if you want to talk about justice i think ive made my point already and i agree with you, but thats not of much use in this particular argument with people who think justice is something else See, there's this funny theory about laws, which is that they don't exist in a vacuum, where they can be assessed purely as words on paper. There is no discussion about laws that does not involve how they affect people. That's a discussion processes. In an abstract sense, what Obama and Trump did are kind of similar, because they both assembled their actions out of similar components. That completely ignores the form of the laws, the function of the laws, the history of the President with regard to the laws, the quality of the legal challenges against the laws, and other factors that are a relevant part of the decision and how people assess the decision. I am concluding that you want to ignore all of those things because if you include them in consideration, it makes arguing your position more difficult. If you want to argue abstract legal process theory outside the context of the US political environment, the thread for discussing current events in US politics is probably not the place to do it.
well if we want to be accurate here i am precisely taking the "form" of the laws into account, the history of (non-)execution of the laws, the quality of explicitly "legal" challenges etc. what i am not taking into account is the content of the laws, which are matters of justice. sadly (or not maybe), "rule of law" and the practice of law by lawyers and judges tends to focus on these issues of form. the first thing you should be told in law school is that laws are tools, and the adversarial system pits two differing conceptions of justice against each other. within the legal arena forms and "abstract processes" of law tend to be far more deadly than naked appeals to justice. such appeals must be strong, nigh universal, to have any hope of overcoming an armed and armored foe.
since trump was elected, after all, i am skeptical that such appeals to justice are as universal as you and i would hope
|
On June 09 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:34 misirlou wrote:On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. First off, I meant to edit the post I did before that to add the quote, it was meant to be an addition to my point of view, because I cannot provide a first hand experience. I make my assumptions based on what I read, and trying to imagine how different my life would be. Second, he did not accuse reps of being nazi sympathizers. Like, NOT EVEN CLOSE He made a comparison. A comparison of how destructive to other social groups the actions of the republican party are, and how the republican voters enable it, to how people in germany were led to believe that nazism was great, the jews were the problem, and how they enabled one of the biggest atrocities in history. He did not even say all of these germans were ok with the holocaust, I believe they probably weren't but they had no idea what they were actually voting for. Which brings me back to my first post and a point I made there. Society has evolved. Hopefully, in the past 70 years our society has evolved and our problems have become different. I am worried that we are blinded/not seeing the bigger picture/missing something in the peripheral vision. Imagine this: after trump leaves office, we find that thousands of illegal women, children and men were sexually abused while in these detention centers, that some hundreds were sold off by corrupt emigration agents to trafficking rings. Nobody (well, almost nobody) wanted this when they wanted to stop illegal crossings and voted for a man that promised them that. People weren't gassed like the jews were, it doesn't make it any less atrocious. The voters did enable it and they have their share of the blame. You made a post about how you are a jew. As in that gives you authority on what nazis are and how ideology leads to the holocaust. The comparison was about how republicans are a threat to you and that supporting them is the same.behaviour that led to the holocaust. You chose to use nazis and the holocause to describe danglers and people like him. That you are a jew and you believe that hes a threat to your life. Even if its not your intent its what you are doing. This isnt about trump this is about you comparing people to nazis and warning people that supporting trump is the same as people who supported the nazis before the holocaust. Doubling down and explaining how your are right about this and explicitly explaining how you think a holocaust similar event would happen doesnt help your case.
I did?! Well I'm not. I was baptized catholic, followed a baptist church in my teens but got sick of the hipocrisy. But I digress.
When did i say i was a jew? ROFLMAO this is too much.
e: also I'd like to add, I'm not a Jew, I'm not American. Never been there, don't plan to. I VERY MUCH CONSIDER TRUMP, THE US GOV AND A PORTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A THREAT TO MY LIFE. And I'm not even muslim, or hispanic, or black. I'm a white European.
|
On June 09 2018 10:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:54 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 09:41 IgnE wrote:On June 09 2018 09:37 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
I'm sorry, I don't have time to reply to this, I'm apparently too busy being Jewish or something. :/ I was going to put something sarcastic about nuance in a different post, but here I am writing it as an actual statement. There is nuance. A law explicitly stripping rights from a minority and a law protecting the health and well being of vulnerable Americans are not comparable except that they're both "laws." When you draw an equivalence between Obama not defending the former and Trump not defending the latter, you are implicitly arguing that the laws themselves are comparable. They're not. psh this is rubbish. you arent even talking about law now. if you want to talk about justice i think ive made my point already and i agree with you, but thats not of much use in this particular argument with people who think justice is something else See, there's this funny theory about laws, which is that they don't exist in a vacuum, where they can be assessed purely as words on paper. There is no discussion about laws that does not involve how they affect people. That's a discussion processes. In an abstract sense, what Obama and Trump did are kind of similar, because they both assembled their actions out of similar components. That completely ignores the form of the laws, the function of the laws, the history of the President with regard to the laws, the quality of the legal challenges against the laws, and other factors that are a relevant part of the decision and how people assess the decision. I am concluding that you want to ignore all of those things because if you include them in consideration, it makes arguing your position more difficult. If you want to argue abstract legal process theory outside the context of the US political environment, the thread for discussing current events in US politics is probably not the place to do it. well if we want to be accurate here i am precisely taking the "form" of the laws into account, the history of (non-)execution of the laws, the quality of explicitly "legal" challenges etc. what i am not taking into account is the content of the laws, which are matters of justice. sadly (or not maybe), "rule of law" and the practice of law by lawyers and judges tends to focus on these issues of form. the first thing you should be told in law school is that laws are tools, and the adversarial system pits two differing conceptions of justice against each other. within the legal arena forms and "abstract processes" of law tend to be far more deadly than naked appeals to justice. such appeals must be strong, nigh universal, to have any hope of overcoming an armed and armored foe. since trump was elected, after all, i am skeptical that such appeals to justice are as universal as you and i would hope
I'm sorry, I don't have time to reply to this, I have to go figure out how to filter this previous conversation through the lens of Jewish ancestry I have that apparently distorts everything I think and say.
More seriously, I'd really like to give this an adequate response, but I'm kind of wiped by the other conversation I ended up having. The short form of the points I wanted to make was that the Obama administration declined to defend a law when it had, if I'm remembering correctly, made a reasonable determination that there was no point to making the defense because the law was completely doomed. Prior to that, the Obama administration had actually gone through the process of defending DOMA in court.
In comparison, the Trump administration has been outspoken against the ACA and actively trying to undo it since day one. To my understanding, the intent behind actions has legal significance in judging the legal status of an action, and that's the primary detail which makes the Trump administration's decision to not defend the ACA qualitatively different from the Obama administration's eventual decision to stop defending DOMA.
Also, I'm sorry about being rude to you in the previous post. It was wrong of me.
|
On June 09 2018 10:03 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:59 Aquanim wrote:On June 09 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:
You made a post about how you are a jew.
... Who did? In what post? He was trying to reply to me. I don't even know what to do with this conversation anymore. I started with "hes a threat to you and people like you because more expensive coverage and less coverage leads to more deaths." He twisted my words. I corrected him, and added a comment about the irony of the fact that I've got Jewish ancestry and Danglars literally defends neonazis. He fixated on my admission of Jewish ancestry, and now I'm apparently posting what I'm posting because I'm Jewish.EDIT, because why not. I'm not doing it, but there are actual holocaust survivors saying about Trump what Sermakola accuses me of saying about Trump. http://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965
If you're not sure what to do; just report it and wait for the mods to deal with it. that's a good fallback position.
|
On June 09 2018 10:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 10:03 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 09:59 Aquanim wrote:On June 09 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:
You made a post about how you are a jew.
... Who did? In what post? He was trying to reply to me. I don't even know what to do with this conversation anymore. I started with "hes a threat to you and people like you because more expensive coverage and less coverage leads to more deaths." He twisted my words. I corrected him, and added a comment about the irony of the fact that I've got Jewish ancestry and Danglars literally defends neonazis. He fixated on my admission of Jewish ancestry, and now I'm apparently posting what I'm posting because I'm Jewish.EDIT, because why not. I'm not doing it, but there are actual holocaust survivors saying about Trump what Sermakola accuses me of saying about Trump. http://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965 If you're not sure what to do; just report it and wait for the mods to deal with it. that's a good fallback position.
I eventually did report that post he was trying to respond to. I'm not sure I did it right, though. It's the first time I've ever reported someone on teamliquid, and there were a lot more options for why I was reporting the post than I was expecting.
|
should we call lawyers "Legal Justice Warriors?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
