|
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 October 14 2025 23:46 LightSpectra wrote:He can join the hallowed ranks of Bill Cosby, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Jim Jordan, Rudy Giuliani, and Rush Limbaugh in receiving the award. Who wouldn't clamor from the grave to join those sex abusers and war criminals?
Of course!
I’m also waiting for the Onion News satire article entitled “Trump masterfully orchestrates 10-hour ceasefire in the Middle East so that both sides can be well-rested before resuming kidnapping and murder.”
|
On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts?
Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned.
|
On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned.
But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law?
If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right?
|
On October 15 2025 02:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned. But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law? If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right?
what the law says and what is enforced is veeeeery different. you should know by now that written laws constraining government action mean nothing and will not be followed by this administration, and there is broad popular support for that because frankly, the people are getting what they want. a simple form of government for simple minds. they want a dictator, and they are getting it. you can document all you like, it's not going to change anything. there will be no nuremburg trials, because nobody is going to invade america. they are doing what they want, and they will get away with it, simple as. There will be elections in 2028, but they will not be free or fair. it's far easier to just give up and accept what's happening. shikata ga nai
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
