Jump to content

udaydanceparty

Full Members
  • Posts

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by udaydanceparty

  1. 5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    and the willingness of the ice employees to continue to act in such a manner. i couldn't live with myself. somehow they seem to be able to do so, and that scares the fuck out of me

    For the most part, these are the same people that were working there doing the exact same job in 2014.  They don't view themselves as doing anything wrong because they have seen enough of the bad shit that cause Obama to implement this policy during his term. 

    obama.jpg

    The only difference is the volume of cases come in. The administration gave an order to reunite the families with the kids but there is quite clearly a bottleneck is in this process. We don't have the infrastructure to house all these people and definitely don't have enough case workers able to get them through the system.  Sessions started this DNA solution but that's not exactly a quick solution.

    I don't think anyone wants kids separated from their actual parents and that's not what this policy was designed to do.  What it's supposed to do is to stop kids being tortured by actual bad guys. 

    Obama's policy was catch and release because we don't have the infrastructure in place to stop the bad guys.  So his policy was to just let them through and let the local PD handle it.  Trump wants to stop them from entering in the first place but is having to settle for this hybrid system that basically forces the US to house these people until they get to see a judge.

     

    So the real debate is how we stop kids that are crossing the border illegally from being tortured without them ending up in cages in the process.  It's a problem and I don't think you can solve both by just blaming the other side.

    • Like 2
  2. So Trump's executive order made the situation worse and the masses have a long attention span.

    The general public is not satisfied with the response and we have unlimited resources to deal with it.

    Releasing pictures of Obama era holding cells that had children on floors in cages made Obama look great and Trump look bad.

    Dems in red states need to act more liberal because it will get them more votes.

    You can cry wolf/Nazi as much as you want and people will listen to you more and start viewing you as a trusted sources of analysis. 

     

    Better David D?

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  3. Trump's executive order did a lot to diffuse that situation and the masses have a short attention span.  Like it or not, at this point the general public is satisfied with the response and know there are limited resources to deal with this.  Releasing those photos of Obama era holding cells really undermined the attacks on the administration.

    The real risk is having Dems that are up for election in red states vote against Kavanaugh.  It puts those seats at risk for the Dems.

    You can only cry wolf/Nazi so many times before people just tune you out and start to view you as hysterical.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 1
  4. 48 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    So, what, you posted a stupid graphic from the New York magazine because you thought it would serve as a strawman?

    Thanks and fuck off.

     

    I agree that the graphic is stupid.  I mean, why do they have 2 degrees of separation between Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka?  (insert joke here)

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 10 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    Uday's graphic looks comically complicated.  It's actually missing quite a bit.

     

    It's not my graphic so I can't take credit. 

    It's a graphic that New York Magazine published to help readers understand the thesis alleging a Trump-Putin plot that originated in 1987.  They didn't want to add too much detail or it could confuse the reader.

    • Fuck You 1
  6. 19 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    Even putting aside identity politics, Barrett is a total unknown other than being openly Catholic and pro life.  If anything, there’s more Souter potential with her than with Kavanaugh and Kethledge since she has no track record and everyone is just assuming she is Scalia-lite because abortion.  

    Oh well.  I suppose to most of the base abortion is all they really care about from SCOTUS, anyway.

    What was Kagan's experience as a justice?  Zero... 

    This move would also put 4 Supreme Court Justices as women.  Trump should absolutely do it.

    13 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

    That's a lot of kids even for a Catholic.

    She adopted 2 kids from Haiti.  3-5 is pretty normal for a Catholic family.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  7. 5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    It’s pretty absurd to think this administration is going to nominate someone that isn’t a white male to the Supreme Court.

    Have y’all not been paying attention?

    Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find a 6 degree of Kevin bacon/Russia to help you get over your surprise.

    • Like 5
    • Haha 1
  8. 1 minute ago, Js1 said:

    So total identity politics. Got it. Thought that was bad?  "Omg you only voted for Hillary because she's a woman!"

    "Wow, we have to pick this Catholic woman for SCOTUS so no one can attack her!"

    It shouldn't be like that but that's the world we live in.

    Correct me if i'm wrong but it does narrow the avenues of criticism for the nominee. 

  9. Amy Coney Barrett is the hardest person for the left to attack so i'd put money on her being the pick.

    Can't say she is sexist..  Can't call her racist (adopted 2 kids from Haiti).  Religion can't be used as a basis for discriminating against her.  Non-stop bashing of Catholics is probably not the best way to keep hispanics happy going into midterms.

     

    • Like 1
  10. 8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    I don't think its bad form for a justice to retire in an election year.   Now if they publicly stated their intentions depending on an upcoming election, that would be bad form.    If you flip the situation, you would most likely see Ginsberg and/or Breyer retiring right now.   SCOTUS is just as political as the other 2 branches of our govt.   They just have their version of elections occur much less frequently so it's more important.

     

     

    As long as the SCOTUS judge is fair and not legislating from the bench we really don't have a problem on our hands regardless of political affiliation.  Congress passes the laws, President signs them.  SCOTUS can rule unconstitutional but both other branches can pass amendments to the constitution and the SCOTUS has to deal with it. 

    Judges just need to stay in their fucking lanes and do their jobs.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...