The All Things Political Topic - SNAFU edition

[rjshae]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

What the GOP needs to do is change there entire strategy around how ICE enforces migration laws 

And Im talking about the optics and reality around  ICE arrests and these violent   raids  on buildings and apartments 

Its alienating large parts of the Hispanic community and they will lose votes 

Trump ran on deportations of illegals as a popular policy and large numbers of Hispanics voted for him 

But they never signed up for how ICE is conducting themselves. Im not sure how exactly they would change things but I would start with being less militant and working with state and city officials to enforce migration laws

This idea of  ICE bypassing or just ignoring   local authorities is not working and its mostly Dem cities where you see this practice by ICE 

From a mile-high perspective, the fundamental problem is that illegal immigrants are deeply embedded in the US economy, and trying to extract that component is going to have negative consequences for everybody. It would be less impactful if they focused on avoiding new illegal immigration and extraditing the newest arrivals before they become entrenched. But either way the optics won't look pretty.

[Malcador]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/trump-venezuela-legal-congress-land

To paraphrase Barry Dennen, respect for the law, 'til now this has been noticeably lacking 

[Gfted1]

7 minutes ago, rjshae said:

From a mile-high perspective, the fundamental problem is that illegal immigrants are deeply embedded in the US economy, and trying to extract that component is going to have negative consequences for everybody. It would be less impactful if they focused on avoiding new illegal immigration and extraditing the newest arrivals before they become entrenched. But either way the optics won't look pretty.

Give everyone a SSN and call it a day. Theres no reason the US has to limit immigration.

[Gromnir]

sandwich guy trial, after two days of jury deliberation, still hasn't produced a verdict.

...

somebody (multiple bodies?) on this jury does not want to punish the defendant.

am gonna admit we had to look up fed criminal misdemeanor assault, 'cause that is literal something we never saw when we worked criminal. am suspecting the fact nobody has ever needed give jury instructions for misdemeanor assault is the reason why this ludicrous trial has stretched to five freaking days.

the fed statute for criminal misdemeanor assault, pretty much has the same elements as common law civil battery:

an act by the defendant

intent to commit the act by the defendant-- not accidental contact

a harmful or offensive touching

lack o' consent by the plaintiff... of course since this is criminal, there is no plaintiff, so instead you got the victim.

that's it, and same as civil (which means we are talking about money damages instead o' loss o' liberty for the defendant,) the standard o' review for the tryer of fact is a reasonable person standard insofar as what constitutes a harmful or offensive touching, although you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

our "pretty much" is doing some heavy lifting and is what has caused confusion, 'cause as is typical, when yahoos write laws, they feel need to add... flair. every word matters. the final jury instructions read pretty much what we got above, but...

regardless, 

am personal rooting for sandwich guy, but this isn't a tough call which needs multiple days o' deliberation... save that at least somebody on the jury most certain doesn't want to find this guy guilty. yeah, there were not even the possibility o' meaningful harm in the sandwich toss, and proving that sandwich guy intended to harm the cbp officer is beyond mere improbable, but is difficult to imagine the reasonable person who wouldn't see being pelted with a sandwich as punctuation to a verbal tirade as constituting an offensive act. 

however, we will note the court messed this whole thing up by providing less than clear jury instructions, which again, is surprisingly understandable seeing as how none o' the lawyers or the judge has needed to consider jury instructions for criminal misdemeanor assault previous to the start o' the sandwich guy trial.

in any event, if somebody we trusted had told us that this would be, at minimum, a five day trial, we woulda' suggested they were chemical altered. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps a reminder, a misdemeanor may include jail time up to one year. as such, from the defendant's pov, this is hardly the nothingburger people would reflexive assume it to be. 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Gromnir

[Malcador]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/sean-dunn-dc-sandwich-thrower-verdict

Acquitted 

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/sean-dunn-dc-sandwich-thrower-verdict

Acquitted 

am genuine disappointed, but not with the verdict. jeanine pirro taking this to a jury were vulgar, and am glad the jury functional told the government to, f-off. however, now that there has been a verdict, we won't be able to talk about how insane it is that sandwich guy were on trial for...

aside, am knowing it sounds odd, but am hopeful the Court allows trump to do his tariffs. yes, trump's tariffs is unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped this Court from changing precedent and/or for altering the clear meaning o' the text o' the Constitution to benefit trump. declare trump's tariffs unconstitutional saves trump from himself and then the president may also blame any subsequent economic pain on the Court's interference.

americans need to feel economic pain to realize trump ain't some kinda business mastermind playing 3-d chess while every other country is playing checkers. it would be unfortunate that just as increased costs from trump's tariffs begin hurting ordinary americans, the Court could swoop in and save him... although if they sit on this and then final deliver their opinion in july, that could be ideal. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited 47 minutes ago by Gromnir