The all things Political Topic - For who in this dark, dream-haunted Land dares Resist the righteous flame of Wrath And Doom themselves to despair and death?

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

well if I am not already on some terrorist watchlist I probably will be soon. After all, can’t have people thinking wrong can we?

GD I get concerned when you raise these types of issues

I think we should all be very concerned when any Democracy starts saying we are " going to prosecute  anti-government ideology " 

What exactly does that mean and who decides what is "anti government ". Seriously, imagine some worse case scenarios around this like " you must bend the knee in reverence to BLM or you are deemed racist and this government doesnt tolerate racists "  or " everyone in the South must admit being involved in the historical  slave trade and pay reparations to government " ( what was that funny website you sometimes quote that made those jokes about a Muppet TV character )  

 

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/opinion/abortion-mississippi-supreme-court.html

Gromnir how does the relationship or legal precedent work in the US where Federal government allows things like abortion  or gay marriage but individual states pass their own laws banning it ? I understand states  can pass their own laws on most developments but what is the point of a Federal law like abortion being  Federal but states ban it , what recourse do you have from a Federal level to overturn this type of state intervention if any?

Or am I misunderstanding Federal laws and state laws synergy ?

gonna oversimplify.

state legislation<federal legislation<The US Constitution

the thing is, while the Constitution outright forbids the fed from legislating a few issues (e.g. police power) most power to legislate is s'posed to be handled by the individual states-- federalism and all that. 

regardless, who decides? who decides if a state law is superseded by a fed law, or if the fed law which is superseding is Constitutional? the Court kinda decided on its own way back in the 1700s that such questions is an article three issue and the fed courts get to decide if a state law is illegitimate 'cause it undermines valid fed laws with SCOTUS the ultimate arbiter.

so, mississippi writes a law they know is in conflict with roe v. wade. the fed courts immediate enjoin the mississippi law from being applied, but mississippi appeals and eventually SCOTUS decides whether or not they wanna hear the case. just 'cause "everybody knows" the mississippi law is impossible to read consistent with roe v. wade, roe  is not the Constitution and is only law as long as SCOTUS says it is law.

the mississippi law were written specific 'cause it would result in a cause of action which would eventual, possibly, get SCOTUS review. states legislators, governors and ags read the tea leaves, they observed the composition o' the Court change dramatic in a short period of time. folks like alito and thomas has been less than subtle o' late that they would welcome a chance to overturn precedent in more than a couple cases. so, if you wann kill roe, now looks like a good time to take a shot, yes? 

...

if the plaintiff is not a state, the whole process o' getting maybe review from SCOTUS may take years, which btw is part o' the gameplan behind voter suppression efforts in texas and florida. even if a florida law is eventual rejected by the Court as repugnant to the Constitution, what 'bout the results o' the election (or two) which nevertheless took place while the law were being applied in the land o' sinkholes and swamps? ain't gonna be no do-over election. even if the republicans lose in Court, they know they is gonna benefit from one or two elections where their voter suppression efforts is applied with full legal force. 

curiously, the most recent appointee to the Court who were critical of roe v. wade before becoming a Justice was the late rgb. no person with aspirations o' becoming a fed judge or Justice ever public criticizes a handful o' cases. roe is one such case. is impossible to say with certainty how acb, gorsuch, kavanaugh will decide on a roe case 'cause they has all spent the last decade or two avoiding such a question with oftentimes amusing degrees o' success. nevertheless, mississippi and many is betting at least a couple o' those new faces is antagonistic to roe. 

the important thing to remember is roe ain't a fed law. the cowards in Congress has never chosen to step forward and address abortion direct. is Court precedent and the Court is free to change their minds. ordinarily altering precedent is a big deal and Justices is reluctant to do so, but a few current Justices has been kinda bold o' late in their advocacy o' the need to reexamine precedent.

@Guard Dog

show us a quote from biden or anybody senior in the administration. condemn POTUS with words o' some obscure journalist we has never heard o' not quoting biden is hardly convincing. hell, at least when you condemned obama for advocating a national police force (something he never did) you at least used a tortured and outta context reading o' a line from an obama speech to do so.

the fbi is constant on the lookout for those persons who is anti government and is showing a willingness to use violence to bring 'bout their desired change. duh. is not as if every milquetoast wannabee anarchist ends up on some government watchlist. 

oh, wait... is this the point where you says you were just sharing the meme, even though is perfect aligning with your usual garden variety paranoia. will nevertheless defend the position that the dems is coming after anybody who don't embrace their new progressive religion, as well as your guns.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

gonna oversimplify.

state legislation<federal legislation<The US Constitution

the thing is, while the Constitution outright forbids the fed from legislating a few issues (e.g. police power) most power to legislate is s'posed to be handled by the individual states-- federalism and all that. 

regardless, who decides? who decides if a state law is superseded by a fed law, or if the fed law which is superseding is Constitutional? the Court kinda decided on its own way back in the 1700s that such questions is an article three issue and the fed courts get to decide if a state law is illegitimate 'cause it undermines valid fed laws with SCOTUS the ultimate arbiter.

so, mississippi writes a law they know is in conflict with roe v. wade. the fed courts immediate enjoin the mississippi law from being applied, but mississippi appeals and eventually SCOTUS decides whether or not they wanna hear the case. just 'cause "everybody knows" the mississippi law is impossible to read consistent with roe v. wade, roe  is not the Constitution and is only law as long as SCOTUS says it is law.

the mississippi law were written specific 'cause it would result in a cause of action which would eventual, possibly, get SCOTUS review. states legislators, governors and ags read the tea leaves, they observed the composition o' the Court change dramatic in a short period of time. folks like alito and thomas has been less than subtle o' late that they would welcome a chance to overturn precedent in more than a couple cases. so, if you wann kill roe, now looks like a good time to take a shot, yes? 

...

if the plaintiff is not a state, the whole process o' getting maybe review from SCOTUS may take years, which btw is part o' the gameplan behind voter suppression efforts in texas and florida. even if a florida law is eventual rejected by the Court as repugnant to the Constitution, what 'bout the results o' the election (or two) which nevertheless took place while the law were being applied in the land o' sinkholes and swamps? ain't gonna be no do-over election. even if the republicans lose in Court, they know they is gonna benefit from one or two elections where their voter suppression efforts is applied with full legal force. 

curiously, the most recent appointee to the Court who were critical of roe v. wade before becoming a Justice was the late rgb. no person with aspirations o' becoming a fed judge or Justice ever public criticizes a handful o' cases. roe is one such case. is impossible to say with certainty how acb, gorsuch, kavanaugh will decide on a roe case 'cause they has all spent the last decade or two avoiding such a question with oftentimes amusing degrees o' success. nevertheless, mississippi and many is betting at least a couple o' those new faces is antagonistic to roe. 

the important thing to remember is roe ain't a fed law. the cowards in Congress has never chosen to step forward and address abortion direct. is Court precedent and the Court is free to change their minds. ordinarily altering precedent is a big deal and Justices is reluctant to do so, but a few current Justices has been kinda bold o' late in their advocacy o' the need to reexamine precedent.

@Guard Dog

 

 

Your response is very interesting and you have explained it very well so its not too legally technical. So if I understand what you saying is that states like Mississippi pass laws that prohibit abortion knowing they will eventually end up after years in  SCOTUS and depending on the elected judges at the time this could be rules  as  a permanent law going forward?

If that is correct does that mean any other state can automatically implement the same law and it cannot be challenged or can it be challenged in a different way and then end up in SCOTUS ?

And finally in Mississippi how can the people of that  state challenge that law again and does that mean for years while we wait for SCOTUS this type of unreasonable law, IMO, will be enforced and practiced within Mississippi and you cant do anything about it ?

[Gromnir]

31 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Your response is very interesting and you have explained it very well so its not too legally technical. So if I understand what you saying is that states like Mississippi pass laws that prohibit abortion knowing they will eventually end up after years in  SCOTUS and depending on the elected judges at the time this could be rules  as  a permanent law going forward?

If that is correct does that mean any other state can automatically implement the same law and it cannot be challenged or can it be challenged in a different way and then end up in SCOTUS ?

And finally in Mississippi how can the people of that  state challenge that law again and does that mean for years while we wait for SCOTUS this type of unreasonable law, IMO, will be enforced and practiced within Mississippi and you cant do anything about it ?

the only good news is that when is state as plaintiff, cases move up the ladder relative fast. unless you are a potential death penalty victim, as an ordinary citizen and voter, your case may take years to reach SCOTUS and is no guarantee the Court will even take your case. mississippi and other states need not wait so long as ordinary joe american.

btw, is already other states doing same or more overt than mississippi. if mississippi wins, then then those states will know their rather draconian limits on abortions is likely to survive Constitutional review by the courts. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade

the best reading o' roe leaves a legal educated person questioning the basis for the decision. that said, is impossible to ignore the reality o' pre roe. full disclosure: we were raised catholic, so am having difficulty personal considering abortion w/o serious reservations, but am not so arrogant as to believe our pov should serve to deny a woman the right to make such an important and life altering choice.

Congress should do something. "Congress should do," has been the prefatory refrain all too often. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 18, 2021 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

@Gromniroh you were interested in a serious rebuttal? Allow me to get my tongue out of my cheek then.

of course the things I find humorous usually align with my point of view in one way or another. For example that Scooby Doo post from yesterday it’s pretty clear I found both sides of the argument absurd. All good humor has a kernel of truth in it. There is in the Biden headline even though it does not actually imply any threat to anyone not engaged in literal criminal activity. 
 

of course I do think the federal government is by far the biggest threat to the individual liberties of the people of the United States. But I’ve also been pretty clear the threat is not imminent. I can think of one specific example from the Obama administration where they did say something that was absolutely disgusting and insulting and threatening all at once. And when it was exposed we got mumbled and disingenuous apologies and insincere walk backs. But in general the government isn’t out to get anyone for thoughtcrime. Not right now anyway.

however, and you have observed this your self, the younger generation has a far lower level of tolerance for diversity of thought and political philosophy. They also value such things as free-speech far less than our generation or the ones that came before us. The seeds of Orwellian INGSOC are well planted in the young. Maybe that will change as they get older. Or maybe that poisonous flower blooms one day and the threats become real. But not today. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

gd not seeing the difference 'tween posting a meme to reveal the absurdity o' a position or behavior v. post a meme to show support o' the underlying premise is a battle we may never win, but we won't give up trying to enlighten.

HA! Good Fun!

ps ever seen where some clown is making a post clear full o' spite and venom and then is adding an emoji as final punctuation to suggest the author were keeding. no doubt you roll your eyes at such infantile deflection, no?

recall the poster named sharp_one? he liked to post memes too. misogynist and anti-semitic. got his account temporarily suspended in part for doing such after which he public wet the bed and then ran off... never to be seen or heard from again. were all very amusing. the thing is, sharp_one also used the "just a meme" bit o' deflection. why take serious if is just a meme. sure, sharp_one were trying to make a point 'bout what he saw as the evils o' a woke society, or somesuch, but do in meme form means anybody who criticizes is humorless and not seeing the joke, yes?

am not suggest @Guard Dog is as much o' a tool as were the long absent poster known as sharp_one. gd ain't indulging anywhere near the same levels o' crude, vulgar and stoopid as were sharp_one. nevertheless, gd is doing the same deflection with the meme stuff. gd believes the underlying message o' the meme, but simultaneous claims he were just keeding.

am expecting better than sharp_one level o' deflection from gd.

again, so is clear, am not suggesting gd memes is crude or vulgar, though am thinking even gd will concede most memes is kinda stoopid. not comparing gd meme use to the crass indulgence o' sharp_one save to observe how your use o' memes is a similar kinda deflection. 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

GD I get concerned when you raise these types of issues

I think we should all be very concerned when any Democracy starts saying we are " going to prosecute  anti-government ideology " 

What exactly does that mean and who decides what is "anti government ". Seriously, imagine some worse case scenarios around this like " you must bend the knee in reverence to BLM or you are deemed racist and this government doesnt tolerate racists "  or " everyone in the South must admit being involved in the historical  slave trade and pay reparations to government " ( what was that funny website you sometimes quote that made those jokes about a Muppet TV character )  

 

Seems they just use that as an adjective - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/15/fact-sheet-national-strategy-for-countering-domestic-terrorism/

But, is a spectrum, anyway.

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Seems they just use that as an adjective - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/15/fact-sheet-national-strategy-for-countering-domestic-terrorism/

But, is a spectrum, anyway.

as noted (with emphasis added):

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

the fbi is constant on the lookout for those persons who is anti government and is showing a willingness to use violence to bring 'bout their desired change. duh. is not as if every milquetoast wannabee anarchist ends up on some government watchlist. 

from the presser:

"It found that the two most lethal elements of today’s domestic terrorism threat are (1) racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race and (2) anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, such as militia violent extremists."

purposeful leave out the "violent extremist" portion is not accidental but perhaps is what makes meme worthy?

ordinary violent extremists is typical the responsibility o' state agencies. antigovernmental and or racial, ethnic and religious motivations is what gives the fed authority to investigate and prosecute. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Apparently Trump admitted he lost
 

I have wondered if he was so big a fool as to really believe he won the election or if he was just preying  on people with the “rigged election” schtick maintain his political coalition such as it was. But several times during his term I underestimated just how big a fool Trump is. 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

however, and you have observed this your self, the younger generation has a far lower level of tolerance for diversity of thought and political philosophy. They also value such things as free-speech far less than our generation or the ones that came before us. The seeds of Orwellian INGSOC are well planted in the young. Maybe that will change as they get older. Or maybe that poisonous flower blooms one day and the threats become real. But not today. 

This is not new. Young people have always had a naivete about what is right and wrong. Distrust of authority and government and thinking critically about society come with age.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

GD I get concerned when you raise these types of issues

I think we should all be very concerned when any Democracy starts saying we are " going to prosecute  anti-government ideology " 

What exactly does that mean and who decides what is "anti government ". Seriously, imagine some worse case scenarios around this like " you must bend the knee in reverence to BLM or you are deemed racist and this government doesnt tolerate racists "  or " everyone in the South must admit being involved in the historical  slave trade and pay reparations to government " ( what was that funny website you sometimes quote that made those jokes about a Muppet TV character )  

 

am wondering if this is a teachable moment. 

bruce were angered by putin trying to use the response to january 6 in the US as some kinda excuse for suppressing any anti-governmental protest. some o' those russian protesters might have advocated and even used violence, and putin used such as an excuse to suppress any and all protest as well as denying anybody even tangential related to protest groups the right to run for elected office. 

nevertheless, when the US is the example o' potential antigovernmental suppression, bruce immediate sees blm as the potential threat.

...

attorney general barr and president trump sent fed troops to apprehend and detain blm protesters last summer with the excuse the protesters were seditionists. unlike january 6 arrests and prosecutions where d-bags is being arrested and prosecuted for specific acts o' violence, vandalism and trespass, there were literal hundreds of examples o' blm protesters being thrown into unmarked vans, w/o being given right to counsel, held against their will for considerable amounts o' time w/o charges being filed. the blm protesters were arrested and not charged frequent w/o any specific evidence o' violence or vandalism on the part o' the protesters. guilt of being a protester were transitive property guilt of being a seditionist. bruce were ok with such governmental exercises o' power. 

your clear example o' what you find offensive with putin, and you see as potential possible if people don't "bend the knee in reverence to blm," already were happening last year in the US and you supported such at the time. bass ackwards bruce.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

This is not new. Young people have always had a naivete about what is right and wrong. Distrust of authority and government and thinking critically about society come with age.

From my where I'm sitting, everyone under 30 thinks the US government is evil and half of middle aged folks wanted Daddy Trump to crown himself emperor. I don't think it's as simple as age.

[Darkpriest]

@Zoraptorseems you are well versed in various alternative information sources.

What do you think on the credibility of this material? 

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/06/17/breaking-chinese-defector-confirmed-as-top-counterintelligence-official-n398374

First time looking at this source, so it has my alarm bells tingling, especially as it states 'rumors'. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Malcador]

Good that he had Hunter Biden's laptop all along.

[Maedhros]

2 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

This is not new. Young people have always had a naivete about what is right and wrong. Distrust of authority and government and thinking critically about society come with age.

That's a silly generalisation. Distrust of authority and government is definitely a thing for young people too. Looking at world history, young people have often been at the forefront of societal change through their...critical thinking.

[Hurlshort]

Hmm, I guess I should be more specific. When I say young people, I mean ages 10-20. Honestly 20-30 year old people should have a clue. That isn't very young.

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

What do you think on the credibility of this material? 

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/06/17/breaking-chinese-defector-confirmed-as-top-counterintelligence-official-n398374

First time looking at this source, so it has my alarm bells tingling, especially as it states 'rumors'. 

I certainly wouldn't believe what they say, in the religious sense, and they clearly have a particular political position to impress upon.

(with such things it's usually a question of how much you can independently verify, and for intelligence leaks that isn't much, usually not even whether they were genuine leaks let alone genuine information being leaked. There have been persistent rumours of high level defections, but that's been the case for a year+, we know (more or less) that the Chinese rolled up the CIA network in China... but anything apart from that needs more than just an anonymous source who may or may not exist. There's also the question of sources gilding the lily, like the infamous Curveball of 'mobile Iraqi CW labs' infamy, and why a leaker would chose that site to leak to when they'd have to know that many would dismiss the information based on who was saying it. More or less wait and see, if the defector exists and is giving the information stated others will start getting leaks soon or (some of) the information would be shared with the public)

[rjshae]

9 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Apparently Trump admitted he lost
 

I have wondered if he was so big a fool as to really believe he won the election or if he was just preying  on people with the “rigged election” schtick maintain his political coalition such as it was. But several times during his term I underestimated just how big a fool Trump is. 

For a second there I thought he was going to admit he'd lost his mind. But no, he's still in denial.

[Gromnir]

*chuckle*

HA! Good Fun!

edit:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/american-insurrection/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Extended_Trailer&utm_content=Video

might trigger a few folks.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Gromnir

[Skarpen]

15 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

This is not new. Young people have always had a naivete about what is right and wrong. Distrust of authority and government and thinking critically about society come with age.

You really think that? From my experience it's more often the youth that rebel against government and establishment rather than older folks. Especially surprising since you are from USA. I don't remember people protesting Vietnam as being a buch of older people or the civil rights movement for that matter.

[Guard Dog]

And now for your daily dose of stupid

Protecting animals from hate speech

[Gfted1]

Oh those wacky Brits. Iirc, they also propose to ask babies permission to change the dirty diaper.

[Guard Dog]

Happy Juneteenth everyone. Oh and before I forget SLAVERY DID NOT END ON JUNE 19th 1865! It was still legal and in practice in several northern states. Why do people refuse to accept that? SLAVERY ENDED ON DECEMBER 6 1865 WHEN THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED!  There… I said it.

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Happy Juneteenth everyone. Oh and before I forget SLAVERY DID NOT END ON JUNE 19th 1865! It was still legal and in practice in several northern states. Why do people refuse to accept that? SLAVERY ENDED ON DECEMBER 6 1865 WHEN THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED!  There… I said it.

Specific dates from history are less important than the intent behind the observation. It's not like Jesus was born on December 25th. 

I think it is great for people to understand that it was a long process to end slavery with many important steps, and there is still progress to be made. Juneteenth is a good time to acknowledge that.

[rjshae]

11 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

Specific dates from history are less important than the intent behind the observation. It's not like Jesus was born on December 25th. 

I think it is great for people to understand that it was a long process to end slavery with many important steps, and there is still progress to be made. Juneteenth is a good time to acknowledge that.

I look at it that Juneteenth is Thanksgiving day for slavery descendants. The symbolism is more important than the accuracy. Then again, we're all descended from slaves and kings, so maybe it should be celebrated everywhere?