|
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 |
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On May 05 2025 06:14 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 06:10 Vivax wrote:
What do all these issues have to do with infectious disease eradication policies ?
Immigration matters to some extent.
What‘s bad for a collective can be very situational in the cae of that and the other points.
In the case of US pol it looks like Trump has ICE filling a quota so they get creative.
Abortions are bad because of Christian fundamentalists in the voter base. Same for gender related things because they haven‘t read of syndromology either and think in binary. If you justify coercion on the grounds of collective harm, then your framework applies to any domain where harm can be claimed: speech, immigration, sexual behavior, religion. You don’t get to invoke the collective when it suits your politics and retreat to individual rights when it doesn’t. You can say "it’s different," but I’m asking how (in truth, I'm not, you don't need to answer).
We’ve collectively subjected people to non-consensual treatments for millennia, folks with mental illness most notably.
What’s known as sectioning/being sectioned under the Mental Health Act is enshrined in law entirely to circumvent personal consent to protect either an individual from harm, or their capacity to harm others.
I mean you’re framing medical ethics as some rubicon which the leftists transgressed and trampled and forced you to turn to desiring ‘order’ whatever that means. But there so a long, long backlog of medicine being practiced that does include some elements of collective harm being factored into best practice.
Ergo if you’re going to try and trap others into ‘if you’re ok with some coercion why not x?’ slippery slope stuff, can’t I just say something daft like ‘so if all medical treatment has to be consensual then crazily unstable people should be free to dander around?’
I add this with the caveat I fucking hate this form of argument, especially on this specific topic.
We’ve always been making tradeoffs, balancing different needs and desires and ideals around things that may bring them into conflict.
Covid was no different, indeed trickier than some others given the slew of unknowns it brought with it.
I guess I’ll still be hearing about it on my deathbed. I’ve zero issue over a practical post-mortem, informing responses to any future similar scenario etc.
But it’s so consistently re-litigated in this accusatory, often partisan way, rather than from the base assumption that some people will be wrong, some right, but broadly that most were engaged in good-faith attempts to try and balance all the associated factors, but the weighting might vary.
|
On May 05 2025 06:02 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 05 2025 05:35 micronesia wrote:
So if I understand, an individual should have to consent to getting the vaccine, not just in an absolute sense, but even to just go out in public and interact with everyone else. No public school should say "stay home until you have the vaccine." No restaurant should say "we don't want you eating here if you aren't vaccinated."
The other members of the public who are exposed to the unvaccianted person, who may be much more likely to spread the disease, do not get the opportunity to consent, nor should they. The needs of the first individual exceed the needs of the others who may be exposed. Contributing, they got the vaccine (which the unvaccinated person did not object to) and are at lower risk of contracting the disease or having a more severe case.
For those who are immuno-compromised, they should just stay out of public so that the people who want to be unvaccinated don't have to.
It's one way to approach human society. There's a lot of people walking around right now that haven't had this years flu vaccine or their updated COVID booster. Are you advocating for laws that demand they get them in order to go to a restaurant for example or are you okay with some immunocompromised people having to die? Clearly he is not.
Not what? It’s not a yes/no question. If you don’t support vaccine mandates for the flu vaccine or Covid booster then either you believe
A) the vaccine mandates won’t increase vaccine uptake
B) the vaccines don’t prevent deaths
Or C) you are okay with some people dying in favor of individual liberty
You don’t get to cop out on answering the question now that mandating Covid vaccines are no longer en vogue
|
United States24624 Posts
I didn't generally advocate for laws even during the height of COVID either, when entire families were getting wiped out fairly regularly. I did advocate for rules (like the examples I gave before, which aren't laws), but none that extended into your own home, where you weren't jeopardizing the safety of the public much.
|
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On May 04 2025 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The House is poised to vote on legislation to punish people for boycotting Israel on Monday. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/DropSiteNews/status/1918510149469188500
It’s completely bonkers quite how some go to bat for the Greatest AllyTM
Not my politics, but I can see a rationale behind forbidding it by government orgs/those associated or under those banners.
Extending it to private persons, if indeed this bill does that is just preposterous.
|
On May 05 2025 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 07:17 Introvert wrote:On May 05 2025 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2025 01:45 Doublemint wrote:On May 05 2025 01:36 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2025 01:17 Doublemint wrote:On May 05 2025 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2025 23:59 Doublemint wrote:
1st amendment lawyers are gonna eat that one for breakfast Only the antisemitic ones of course. /s //edit: although here the orange menace is just not sure if he has to follow the constitution. so who knows anymore... Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'It is not disputed that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally or that the government could potentially deport him.
Trump insisted he was not defying the Supreme Court.
“No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality,” he said. “I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ.” rofl. masterful yet again. "the buck stops... wherever I point folks" -POTUS He's already violating the Constitution, so he's not wrong about it being unclear if anyone can/will stop him. I get the frustration, I really do. but I am actually rather hopeful for the first time since the election and all the horrible stuff that followed. the resistance is growing. and the courts will stop him. the alternative would be the end of the American experiment, and the end of their careers as judges. I would like to think they rather like their position and standing. and court battles take time... social media broke our brains with instant barrage of 24/7 noise basically. the courts will stop him? Has the WH stopped ignoring the courts while I wasn't looking? https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/again, it takes time. I would start worrying if the Supreme Court lets him have his way with some "new theory" or alternatively if they - collectively as in with the majority 5 to 4 or higher- rebuke his actions and he still feels the need to keep going. then you should actually worry in my humble estimation. it would be quite the escalation that would put us into murky waters. there is bending the law and breaking it, he is dangerously bending it as a politician so far. as a businessman he was exposed as a criminal... so the habit would be there for him to keep going the same direction. could be wrong of course. You point to courts saying 'don't' when I ask for for the WH just completely ignoring the courts. Like how the courts, including the SC, ordered Kilmar Garcia returned. How is that working out. Surely you know that's not what they said? They very specifically didn't say that, because they knew they had no power to make it happen. Didn't they say that Trump had to facilitate the release of Garcia? And isn't Trump doing nothing to facilitate the release of Garcia?
The relevent paragraph is
The application is granted in part and denied in part,
subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent,
the Government’s emergency application is effectively
granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is
no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order
remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The
order properly requires the Government to “facilitate”
Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to
ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the
Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE
is vacated.
sorry for the formatting, it's copying from the pdf on the supreme court website. It is vague (imo intentionally so) about "facilitate" and "effectuate" which seems to be because they know they have no real power to order the executive to do anything vis-a-vis another head of state, esp for a citizen of that state. They still instruct that his case be handled as if he had not be sent to El Salvador, but they do not require the executive to actually bring him back. Just to "facilitate." And from what I recall the administration did it' pro-forma part
"hey can we have him back "
"no"
"ok"
The Chief Justice is doing things very slowly, often to the consternation of the administration.
|
United States24624 Posts
On May 05 2025 09:02 Introvert wrote:
"hey can we have him back "
"no"
"ok"
Do you know this happened? I recall the "no" actually being something like "we can't give him back without the USA's permission".
|
On May 05 2025 09:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2025 07:17 Introvert wrote:On May 05 2025 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2025 01:45 Doublemint wrote:On May 05 2025 01:36 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2025 01:17 Doublemint wrote:On May 05 2025 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2025 23:59 Doublemint wrote:
1st amendment lawyers are gonna eat that one for breakfast Only the antisemitic ones of course. /s //edit: although here the orange menace is just not sure if he has to follow the constitution. so who knows anymore... Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'It is not disputed that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally or that the government could potentially deport him.
Trump insisted he was not defying the Supreme Court.
“No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality,” he said. “I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ.” rofl. masterful yet again. "the buck stops... wherever I point folks" -POTUS He's already violating the Constitution, so he's not wrong about it being unclear if anyone can/will stop him. I get the frustration, I really do. but I am actually rather hopeful for the first time since the election and all the horrible stuff that followed. the resistance is growing. and the courts will stop him. the alternative would be the end of the American experiment, and the end of their careers as judges. I would like to think they rather like their position and standing. and court battles take time... social media broke our brains with instant barrage of 24/7 noise basically. the courts will stop him? Has the WH stopped ignoring the courts while I wasn't looking? https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/again, it takes time. I would start worrying if the Supreme Court lets him have his way with some "new theory" or alternatively if they - collectively as in with the majority 5 to 4 or higher- rebuke his actions and he still feels the need to keep going. then you should actually worry in my humble estimation. it would be quite the escalation that would put us into murky waters. there is bending the law and breaking it, he is dangerously bending it as a politician so far. as a businessman he was exposed as a criminal... so the habit would be there for him to keep going the same direction. could be wrong of course. You point to courts saying 'don't' when I ask for for the WH just completely ignoring the courts. Like how the courts, including the SC, ordered Kilmar Garcia returned. How is that working out. Surely you know that's not what they said? They very specifically didn't say that, because they knew they had no power to make it happen. Didn't they say that Trump had to facilitate the release of Garcia? And isn't Trump doing nothing to facilitate the release of Garcia? The relevent paragraph is Show nested quote +The application is granted in part and denied in part,
subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent,
the Government’s emergency application is effectively
granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is
no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order
remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The
order properly requires the Government to “facilitate”
Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to
ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the
Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE
is vacated. sorry for the formatting, it's copying from the pdf on the supreme court website. It is vague (imo intentionally so) about "facilitate" and "effectuate" which seems to be because they know they have no real power to order the executive to do anything vis-a-vis another head of state, esp for a citizen of that state. They still instruct that his case be handled as if he had not be sent to El Salvador, but they do not require the executive to actually bring him back. Just to "facilitate." And from what I recall the administration did it' pro-forma part "hey can we have him back " "no" "ok" The Chief Justice is doing things very slowly, often to the consternation of the administration.
Okay, then in that case, it seems like both answers to my questions are Yes. That definitely doesn't count as facilitating the victim's release; that's Trump not even trying.
|
On May 05 2025 09:57 micronesia wrote:Do you know this happened? I recall the "no" actually being something like "we can't give him back without the USA's permission".
eh I read it somewhere. As of right now the government is filing things that aren't public at the moment so the judge is delaying further proceedings. Something is happening in the background. Apparently Garcia is not in CECOT and hasn't been for a while? I think part of the stunt of letting Van Hollen talk to him was to show he wasn't being tortured or whatever else was being claimed.
On May 05 2025 10:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 09:02 Introvert wrote:On May 05 2025 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2025 07:17 Introvert wrote:On May 05 2025 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2025 01:45 Doublemint wrote:On May 05 2025 01:36 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2025 01:17 Doublemint wrote:On May 05 2025 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2025 23:59 Doublemint wrote:
1st amendment lawyers are gonna eat that one for breakfast Only the antisemitic ones of course. /s He's already violating the Constitution, so he's not wrong about it being unclear if anyone can/will stop him. I get the frustration, I really do. but I am actually rather hopeful for the first time since the election and all the horrible stuff that followed. the resistance is growing. and the courts will stop him. the alternative would be the end of the American experiment, and the end of their careers as judges. I would like to think they rather like their position and standing. and court battles take time... social media broke our brains with instant barrage of 24/7 noise basically. the courts will stop him? Has the WH stopped ignoring the courts while I wasn't looking? https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/again, it takes time. I would start worrying if the Supreme Court lets him have his way with some "new theory" or alternatively if they - collectively as in with the majority 5 to 4 or higher- rebuke his actions and he still feels the need to keep going. then you should actually worry in my humble estimation. it would be quite the escalation that would put us into murky waters. there is bending the law and breaking it, he is dangerously bending it as a politician so far. as a businessman he was exposed as a criminal... so the habit would be there for him to keep going the same direction. could be wrong of course. You point to courts saying 'don't' when I ask for for the WH just completely ignoring the courts. Like how the courts, including the SC, ordered Kilmar Garcia returned. How is that working out. Surely you know that's not what they said? They very specifically didn't say that, because they knew they had no power to make it happen. Didn't they say that Trump had to facilitate the release of Garcia? And isn't Trump doing nothing to facilitate the release of Garcia? The relevent paragraph is The application is granted in part and denied in part,
subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent,
the Government’s emergency application is effectively
granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is
no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order
remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The
order properly requires the Government to “facilitate”
Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to
ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the
Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE
is vacated. sorry for the formatting, it's copying from the pdf on the supreme court website. It is vague (imo intentionally so) about "facilitate" and "effectuate" which seems to be because they know they have no real power to order the executive to do anything vis-a-vis another head of state, esp for a citizen of that state. They still instruct that his case be handled as if he had not be sent to El Salvador, but they do not require the executive to actually bring him back. Just to "facilitate." And from what I recall the administration did it' pro-forma part "hey can we have him back " "no" "ok" The Chief Justice is doing things very slowly, often to the consternation of the administration. Okay, then in that case, it seems like both answers to my questions are Yes. That definitely doesn't count as facilitating the victim's release; that's Trump not even trying.
Only if you skip past the "facilitate" and "effectuate" distinction that is the crux of the intentional ambiguity, then sure. No one really knows what it means for them to "try" and certainly no prudential, sane justice on the court would try to stick their noses too far into dealings with foreign states. What exactly the courts have the power to do wrt to returning him is unclear, as the part I quoted states.
edit: this is also one of those cases where the courts are getting over their skis. Not every wrong has a remedy of just undoing the wrong, court precedent has been clear on that forever. Ordering the government around on foreign affairs is something any president would bristle at and it's part of why I'm worried the courts are going to create, and are creating, their own crisis.
|
If the courts can't order the executive not to kidnap people and stuff them in a foreign prison, then what the fuck are courts for?
|
On May 05 2025 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 06:02 Billyboy wrote:On May 05 2025 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 05 2025 05:35 micronesia wrote:
So if I understand, an individual should have to consent to getting the vaccine, not just in an absolute sense, but even to just go out in public and interact with everyone else. No public school should say "stay home until you have the vaccine." No restaurant should say "we don't want you eating here if you aren't vaccinated."
The other members of the public who are exposed to the unvaccianted person, who may be much more likely to spread the disease, do not get the opportunity to consent, nor should they. The needs of the first individual exceed the needs of the others who may be exposed. Contributing, they got the vaccine (which the unvaccinated person did not object to) and are at lower risk of contracting the disease or having a more severe case.
For those who are immuno-compromised, they should just stay out of public so that the people who want to be unvaccinated don't have to.
It's one way to approach human society. There's a lot of people walking around right now that haven't had this years flu vaccine or their updated COVID booster. Are you advocating for laws that demand they get them in order to go to a restaurant for example or are you okay with some immunocompromised people having to die? Clearly he is not. Not what? It’s not a yes/no question. If you don’t support vaccine mandates for the flu vaccine or Covid booster then either you believe A) the vaccine mandates won’t increase vaccine uptake B) the vaccines don’t prevent deaths Or C) you are okay with some people dying in favor of individual liberty You don’t get to cop out on answering the question now that mandating Covid vaccines are no longer en vogue
You don't get to just box people up beacuse you don't understand whats being discussed BJ. We get that you're okay with dead people being the cost of doing business but you are aware that the health situation we are in now is measurably different than when the medical establishment was on the edge of collapse right?
Like the rest of us didn't forget the context where the mandates were made even if you want to scrub that away. The vaccine was good and getting more people to take the vaccine was a good choice. There not being a public health emergency means that you operate differently than when there is. This shouldn't be a hard concept.
Trying to invalidate the means when they achived the ends desired is very werid ilogical behavior. Measels was a thing that went away for a long time, and we almost got polio. Can you at least agree that the small pox vaccine was a good thing to mandate for people?
|
On May 05 2025 11:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2025 08:28 BlackJack wrote:On May 05 2025 06:02 Billyboy wrote:On May 05 2025 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 05 2025 05:35 micronesia wrote:
So if I understand, an individual should have to consent to getting the vaccine, not just in an absolute sense, but even to just go out in public and interact with everyone else. No public school should say "stay home until you have the vaccine." No restaurant should say "we don't want you eating here if you aren't vaccinated."
The other members of the public who are exposed to the unvaccianted person, who may be much more likely to spread the disease, do not get the opportunity to consent, nor should they. The needs of the first individual exceed the needs of the others who may be exposed. Contributing, they got the vaccine (which the unvaccinated person did not object to) and are at lower risk of contracting the disease or having a more severe case.
For those who are immuno-compromised, they should just stay out of public so that the people who want to be unvaccinated don't have to.
It's one way to approach human society. There's a lot of people walking around right now that haven't had this years flu vaccine or their updated COVID booster. Are you advocating for laws that demand they get them in order to go to a restaurant for example or are you okay with some immunocompromised people having to die? Clearly he is not. Not what? It’s not a yes/no question. If you don’t support vaccine mandates for the flu vaccine or Covid booster then either you believe A) the vaccine mandates won’t increase vaccine uptake B) the vaccines don’t prevent deaths Or C) you are okay with some people dying in favor of individual liberty You don’t get to cop out on answering the question now that mandating Covid vaccines are no longer en vogue You don't get to just box people up beacuse you don't understand whats being discussed BJ. We get that you're okay with dead people being the cost of doing business but you are aware that the health situation we are in now is measurably different than when the medical establishment was on the edge of collapse right? Like the rest of us didn't forget the context where the mandates were made even if you want to scrub that away. The vaccine was good and getting more people to take the vaccine was a good choice. There not being a public health emergency means that you operate differently than when there is. This shouldn't be a hard concept. Trying to invalidate the means when they achived the ends desired is very werid ilogical behavior. Measels was a thing that went away for a long time, and we almost got polio. Can you at least agree that the small pox vaccine was a good thing to mandate for people?
So your argument for allowing people to die of COVID instead of getting vaccines for people is because “it’s no longer a public health emergency.” Ok… sounds like you’re just an antivaxxer finding a way to rationalize yourself being ok with people dying.
|
Canada11317 Posts
So according to the Don, the great leader, the mighty leader, the leader of the world, leader of the US, leader of the four quarters, the wise shepherd, favourite of the gods, guardian of right, lover of justice and so on and so forth...
Hollywood's inability to make profitable movies is a National Security threat. 100% tariffs to films produced outside the US. RIP Hollywood North and I guess we get to see more movies produced in the Hollywood backlots (easily the worst thing about Army of Darkness is the boring California deserts.) At what point will Congress take back their taxation powers?
He lied about Canadian fentanyl to justify the security crisis and as long as you play along with the lie it's at least conceivably a security threat. This isn't even trying to make to justify itself as National Security. The powers of taxation were the key way to rein in the monarch but MAGA wants to hand over the keys to the kingdom. "Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
