|
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 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:
"But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge.
That is a pretty funny way to gloss over his promise that you voted for. The counterargument to the opinion is about first amendment rights, which is something the president's promise (that you voted for) is very relevant to.
|
United States43436 Posts
Remember that Danglars and I spent a few pages with Danglars insisting that the Alabama felon disenfranchisement laws, which were authored at a constitutional congress called specifically to deal with the threat of the negro menace, and were explicitly stated by the president of that constitutional congress to be a loophole they could use to deny the vote to black citizens, were both not racist and a state's rights issue.
A direct quote from the guy writing the Alabama felon disenfranchisement laws
And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State.
|
On June 27 2018 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:
That will be a nice change of pace in a safe seat. Teach other democrats to show up for debates. Fuck that it should show centrist Dems to not be fearful to run in Progressive platforms. Medicare for all, legalization and so on. But we already know how establishment Dems will respond. More PAC funding.
an interesting platform; but I question the specifics involved in getting it done. (even if it were politically feasible, I'm wondering what the actual plan/details behind it would be, and housing is more of a state/local issue anyways). But ofc the normal voters themselves won't care so much about that, so works fine as a platform I suppose.
|
On June 27 2018 11:19 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:
"But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. That is a pretty funny way to gloss over his promise that you voted for. The counterargument to the opinion is about first amendment rights, which is something the president's promise (that you voted for) is very relevant to.
isn't it interesting how somehow a foreigner has a first amendment right to come into our country but bakers and clinic operators can be lose theirs and be compelled to speak.
|
On June 27 2018 11:11 RenSC2 wrote:
On the disparate impact thing, was Jim Crow not actually disparate impact then? I mean, it only effected black people in America. There were still a lot more black people in Africa, right? And those people weren't effected by Jim Crow laws. That was still struck down for disparate impact, right? I'm not too familiar with the rulings that struck it down.
It seems like someone would have to really contort themselves intellectually to say that Trump's muslim ban isn't a muslim ban because it doesn't effect all muslims and then there are a couple other non-muslim nations tossed in.
It depends upon which Jim Crow law you're talking about. Some were expressly racist (ie not facially neutral; they expressly targeted blacks). Others were facially neutral, but still had an impermissibly racist impact or racist animus.
EDIT: And for the record, there really isn't a single simple test for determining what law or action is impermissibly racist and not. Courts go through a bit of a logic tree, which the specific facts of each case dictating which rule applies. Context matters a lot.
|
Get rekt Baker
User was warned for this post
|
On June 27 2018 11:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 11:11 RenSC2 wrote:
On the disparate impact thing, was Jim Crow not actually disparate impact then? I mean, it only effected black people in America. There were still a lot more black people in Africa, right? And those people weren't effected by Jim Crow laws. That was still struck down for disparate impact, right? I'm not too familiar with the rulings that struck it down.
It seems like someone would have to really contort themselves intellectually to say that Trump's muslim ban isn't a muslim ban because it doesn't effect all muslims and then there are a couple other non-muslim nations tossed in. It depends upon which Jim Crow law you're talking about. Some were expressly racist (ie not facially neutral; they expressly targeted blacks). Others were facially neutral, but still had an impermissibly racist impact or racist animus. EDIT: And for the record, there really isn't a single simple test for determining what law or action is unconstitutionally racist and not. Courts go through a bit of a logic tree, which the specific facts of each case dictating which rule applies.
Unfortunately, I don't know too much about Jim Crow other than the real basics, so I can't ask about a specific law. However, I would be worried about the expressly racist laws as they're not useful for this context.
For the ones that were deemed to have impermissibly racist impact or racist animus, despite not being expressly racist, how were they determined to have impermissible racist impact or racist animus? Did the judges look at the percentage of people world wide who were effected or did they look at a narrower margin, such as the people who the law would apply to, namely southern black people?
Relating to the muslim ban, to determine if there is impermissible impact or animus, should we look at the percentage of muslim people in the whole world that this law effects or should we look at who this law applies to and if there is a particular characteristic that is heavily singled out, namely being muslim?
|
A guy threw chicken shit at the Red Hen while yelling MAGA. There was a different person carrying a sign about how gays need to repent or burn*. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was politely asked to leave after the owner asked the gay employees how they felt about serving someone who supports the right of people to refuse service to them because they're gay, and they didn't want. But remind me again how it's liberals who are a threat to civil discourse.
*I really thought we were past that.
|
On June 27 2018 11:19 KwarK wrote:Remember that Danglars and I spent a few pages with Danglars insisting that the Alabama felon disenfranchisement laws, which were authored at a constitutional congress called specifically to deal with the threat of the negro menace, and were explicitly stated by the president of that constitutional congress to be a loophole they could use to deny the vote to black citizens, were both not racist and a state's rights issue. A direct quote from the guy writing the Alabama felon disenfranchisement laws Show nested quote +And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State.
I remembered that when I realized the person who thinks John "I hate gooks" McCain shouldn't have been called racist was Danglars. I mean I could see someone arguing he's got a decent reason to be, (obviously wouldn't explain away his opposition to recognizing MLK jr...) but it's flat out dangerous to continue to let people like Danglars to keep trying to use random accusations of racism (whether real or imagined) diminish actual racist stuff with the line of argumentation he's attempting (albeit even less convincing than xDaunts).
|
Pelosi statement in Crowley loss, you can feel her rage. Also no congrats to her opponent.
|
I'd recommend looking at Crowley's record. Although he's certainly 'establishment' by virtue of being in the house forever, he was fairly liberal (though that may have been because of the district he represented). He failed to take the primary as seriously as he should have and turnout was low, so him losing out isn't the craziest thing.
Hopefully Ocasio-Cortez is an effective legislator and replacement - I'm not really opposed to having an old white guy (even a pretty okay old white guy) replaced with a young minority candidate, generally speaking.
|
I’m not feeling much rage. The man got complacent in a city filled with activist and got dumpstered.
|
|
|
i mean, she's gonna miss a guy she's worked with for a decade. what's wrong with that?
|
On June 27 2018 11:43 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 11:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 11:11 RenSC2 wrote:
On the disparate impact thing, was Jim Crow not actually disparate impact then? I mean, it only effected black people in America. There were still a lot more black people in Africa, right? And those people weren't effected by Jim Crow laws. That was still struck down for disparate impact, right? I'm not too familiar with the rulings that struck it down.
It seems like someone would have to really contort themselves intellectually to say that Trump's muslim ban isn't a muslim ban because it doesn't effect all muslims and then there are a couple other non-muslim nations tossed in. It depends upon which Jim Crow law you're talking about. Some were expressly racist (ie not facially neutral; they expressly targeted blacks). Others were facially neutral, but still had an impermissibly racist impact or racist animus. EDIT: And for the record, there really isn't a single simple test for determining what law or action is unconstitutionally racist and not. Courts go through a bit of a logic tree, which the specific facts of each case dictating which rule applies. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about Jim Crow other than the real basics, so I can't ask about a specific law. However, I would be worried about the expressly racist laws as they're not useful for this context. For the ones that were deemed to have impermissibly racist impact or racist animus, despite not being expressly racist, how were they determined to have impermissible racist impact or racist animus? Did the judges look at the percentage of people world wide who were effected or did they look at a narrower margin, such as the people who the law would apply to, namely southern black people? Relating to the muslim ban, to determine if there is impermissible impact or animus, should we look at the percentage of muslim people in the whole world that this law effects or should we look at who this law applies to and if there is a particular characteristic that is heavily singled out, namely being muslim?
If you are interested in how courts handle Jim Crow-type laws and other equal protection issues, read this. However, equal protection analysis doesn’t really apply to the Muslim travel ban given the foreign policy context (though I realize that Sotomayor and Ginsberg somewhat disagree with this proposition).
|
On June 27 2018 12:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'd recommend looking at Crowley's record. Although he's certainly 'establishment' by virtue of being in the house forever, he was fairly liberal (though that may have been because of the district he represented). He failed to take the primary as seriously as he should have and turnout was low, so him losing out isn't the craziest thing.
Hopefully Ocasio-Cortez is an effective legislator and replacement - I'm not really opposed to having an old white guy (even a pretty okay old white guy) replaced with a young minority candidate, generally speaking.
The "Fairly Liberal" donors:
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1011787379462623237
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States43436 Posts
On June 27 2018 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 12:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'd recommend looking at Crowley's record. Although he's certainly 'establishment' by virtue of being in the house forever, he was fairly liberal (though that may have been because of the district he represented). He failed to take the primary as seriously as he should have and turnout was low, so him losing out isn't the craziest thing.
Hopefully Ocasio-Cortez is an effective legislator and replacement - I'm not really opposed to having an old white guy (even a pretty okay old white guy) replaced with a young minority candidate, generally speaking. The "Fairly Liberal" donors: + Show Spoiler +
My understanding is that those kind of donors donate to every sitting politician so that the phone is answered when they call.
|
On June 27 2018 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 12:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'd recommend looking at Crowley's record. Although he's certainly 'establishment' by virtue of being in the house forever, he was fairly liberal (though that may have been because of the district he represented). He failed to take the primary as seriously as he should have and turnout was low, so him losing out isn't the craziest thing.
Hopefully Ocasio-Cortez is an effective legislator and replacement - I'm not really opposed to having an old white guy (even a pretty okay old white guy) replaced with a young minority candidate, generally speaking. The "Fairly Liberal" donors: + Show Spoiler +
I was referring to his voting and policy record.
You do realize that the district is a big chunk of New York City, right? That place where Wall Street is, and is generally known as the finance capital of the world? Ergo, tons of people who live there also work there... for a bank.
That's a laundry list of large companies, primarily financial and professional service organizations. If you're gonna blacklist employees of those, you're cutting out 10's of millions of Americans who just happen to work there, whether they're a bank teller, janitor or VP of Screwing Over Regular Americans.
|
On June 27 2018 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 12:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'd recommend looking at Crowley's record. Although he's certainly 'establishment' by virtue of being in the house forever, he was fairly liberal (though that may have been because of the district he represented). He failed to take the primary as seriously as he should have and turnout was low, so him losing out isn't the craziest thing.
Hopefully Ocasio-Cortez is an effective legislator and replacement - I'm not really opposed to having an old white guy (even a pretty okay old white guy) replaced with a young minority candidate, generally speaking. The "Fairly Liberal" donors: + Show Spoiler +
Can't imagine what interest all those corporations would have in supporting someone like Crowley or how that might have influenced his perspective on his responsibilities as a leader in the party. Certainly no correlation to the establishment Democrats that endorsed him and his fundraising.
The same people defending his fundraising think they should be trusted with campaign finance reform and see nothing ridiculous.
|
On June 27 2018 11:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 11:19 Doodsmack wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:
"But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. That is a pretty funny way to gloss over his promise that you voted for. The counterargument to the opinion is about first amendment rights, which is something the president's promise (that you voted for) is very relevant to. isn't it interesting how somehow a foreigner has a first amendment right to come into our country but bakers and clinic operators can be lose theirs and be compelled to speak.
The last thing a crisis pregnancy center is is a clinic. When you pose as a clinic, do everything in your power to look like a clinic, but offer zero services that would qualify you as a clinic, there should be a rule saying you have to say something about that. It's like "compelling" food companies to tell you what's in the food you're buying. Because that is something you should know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
