US Politics, October 2018: next week will be even longer

xpost For sure, I call Alfred angel of the mourning.

I suppose one unintentional positive of Trump's tenure to the world at large will be the deemphasis of America's influence on the world at large.

Yep.

I should have thought the Iraq War ended that nonsense.

Is the replacement of that influence with the increasing influence of China and Russia going to be any better? That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know.

Russia's influence seems primarily malicious. They are not a big enough power to do much more than just muddy things up. At least not right now. China ... don't know what to think about them.

btw guys, nobody see that movie The Oath if you're already mega stressed out ITT

(it's not a great movie anyway, but uhh....just sayin')

I suppose it's something that Wong Kim Ark is trending on Twitter.

not the Laura Poitras Oath?

Q: What are the most important house, senate, state etc. close races right now that might be worth making a last minute donation to?

It's a good question, since it seems like the field is widening more every week.

I would just give it to DSCC or DCCC or something but sometimes I mistrust those orgs. I know they're not the same as the DNC, but will they actually spend wisely and get it where it needs to go?

I did give to DAG earlier in the year through a fundraiser to elect more women dem atty generals.

DAGA rather

So disturbing to see republicans in like Iowa's top concern is illegal immigration .All the fucking things to be worried about and this is it? you can see why trumps go to strategy is to scary these people into a frenzy about the impending illegal invasion of rapist and murderers

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/givesmart6?amount=80

Q: What are the most important house, senate, state etc. close races right now that might be worth making a last minute donation to?

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive),

Debbie Murcasel-Powell, Donna Shalala (ugh) .

Oh, the phone menu, you must press "1" for English
The brown busboy spilled hot soup on my wingtips
My gardener smells, his accent is annoying
He wants days off, my bottled water he's enjoying

and you tell me over and over and over again my friend
you don't believe
we're on the eve of destruction

I think an important thing to remember about a conservative Supreme Court is that while they are for sure going to be eager to enable right-wing legislative goals, they are likely to be slightly more hesitant to cede nakedly unconstitutional powers to the executive branch - they are going to take into account the fact that one day the oval office might not be occupied by a GOP psychopath, and they will guard their own powers accordingly. That's how you get exceptionally narrow rulings like Bush v. Gore etc. They may be happy giving *Trump* specific powers, but they aren't going to want to set a precedent for giving a Democratic president the power to just override Constitutional Amendments via EO, like, say, the 2nd Amendment.

anyway that whole derail upthread is stupid

Actually I think the most likely area where the conservative Supreme Court will do the most damage is not in "enabling right-wing legislative goals" exactly, but in handicapping the ability of federal and state legislatures to enact left-wing and liberal legislative goals. The absolute empowerment of corporations has further-reaching implications than the absolute empowerment of the executive (and, indeed, conservatives are smart enough to realize that the executive will change hands/parties over the course of this Court's tenure).

So disturbing to see republicans in like Iowa's top concern is illegal immigration. All the fucking things to be worried about and this is it?

I've been saying since around time of Tea Party that the parties used to disagree over the solutions to the major problems facing the country, and now they can't even agree on what the major problems are. Idk maybe it was always that way tho.

look at how the Roberts Court has made class action litigation harder, for example.

China ... don't know what to think about them.

I know what to think about them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45812419

pure electioneering nonsense that will have no effect except on clicks.

beacham's tweet upthread: "When will you media types lean to ignore Trump's nonsense and stick to the major issues at hand. You don't have to take the bait every time."

you know, i also appreciate the impulse to remain calm, but would point out that it's a perfectly reasonable response for people to flip out over this. when the muslim ban went into effect soon after the inauguration, people went crazy, even though everyone was being told that there was no way it would be upheld (and even though eventually, in a modified form, it was). it's important that people immediately raise their objections. we need more mass public protest in the face of this shit, not less. the fact that the thing being proposed is unconstitutional doesn't make it ignorable: that's the reason it is so detestable and needs to be prominently shouted down by anyone paying attention.

how would the Beacham tweet apply to even more flagrant unconstitutional proposals? "Trump eyes EO that everyone must pass Betsy DeVos-devised IQ test in order to vote". Beacham response: "hey media, don't take the bait on this! just ignore it and concentrate on the issues at hand." unconstitutional EOs ARE a major issue at hand.

ty karl

"enabling right-wing legislative goals" exactly, but in handicapping the ability of federal and state legislatures to enact left-wing and liberal legislative goals.

totally agree, but kinda see these as the same thing tbh

the author is dead and trump may be electioneering but that's hardly the most important thing that will come out of this

this EO thing is pretty stupid get back to me when he actually issues one

he's trying to shift the media narrative away from recent tragedies and back onto his preferred territory to goose GOP turnout

will do

but the impulse to shush anyone else who cares about it is fucking stupid imo

it's important that people immediately raise their objections. we need more mass public protest in the face of this shit, not less.

OTMFM

What I'll shush is the click-happy fucking mainstream media raising constitutional rhetorical hmmm that purposely raise blood pressure. Come on now.

Also, keep in mind, y'all, elections are a week away and for all we know the White House people, insofar as they know how to read, must be looking at brutal numbers for the House. This tactic works to keep the base enraged/engaged and the cable news industry humming for another couple days.

And, sorry, if you ain't protesting already, then this nonsense won't do it.

There's a bit of a right wing cat and mouse game pattern I've observed with this sort of thing -- Trump tweets something outrageous (let's take away birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens), everyone flips out, right wingers go "Well yes but actually 'birth tourisim' is a serious problem" and well-meaning "moderate liberals" go "hmm well yes they do have a point we can't change the constitution but perhaps we ought to do *something* about it" and it shifts the narrative into their territory. I agree you can't just ignore it and there is value in affirming widespread support for birthright citizenship, but there's a danger there too. Anyway, in the end, it's futile to think people might learn not to be outraged at the outrageous.

i understand that people driving the "all of us are democratic messaging agents who can only yell PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS and drive people to the polls" are themselves frightened and panicked and afraid, and that the reduction of the field of focus comes from a desire for a better and safer world. to demand that everyone share their reduced focus is myopia.

Out of curiosity: What's to stop the Supreme Court from just overturning precedent now and saying EO's can overrule the constitution, and then overturning their own precedent and saying it's not okay to president Chelsea Clinton in 2025?

"I refuse to give equal weight to every fool thing coming out of this garbage sack's mouth" /= reduced focus or myopia.

The Court doesn't just, like, issue diktats, Fred. There's not a case in front of them regarding the question.

yeah there's the question of standing too

yeah the law doesn't work that fast, there has to be trials and cases and decisions and rulings

right wingers go "Well yes but actually 'birth tourisim' is a serious problem" and well-meaning "moderate liberals" go "hmm well yes they do have a point we can't change the constitution but perhaps we ought to do *something* about it"

does this actually happen

GRAHAM: I am deeply passionate about upholding the constitution. its super important to me, a strict constitutionalist
REPORTER: *gestures at 14th amendment*
GRAHAM: having said that https://t.co/3DNVIw0BnN

— KT NELSON (@KrangTNelson) October 30, 2018

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/413832-graham-to-introduce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship

The Court doesn't just, like, issue diktats, Fred. There's not a case in front of them regarding the question.

― Plinka Trinka Banga Tink (Eliza D.), 30. oktober 2018 16:58 (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah there's the question of standing too

― You like queer? I like queer. Still like queer. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), 30. oktober 2018 16:59 (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah the law doesn't work that fast, there has to be trials and cases and decisions and rulings

― Οὖτις, 30. oktober 2018 16:59 (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But there will be a case out of this if Trump tries to do it, and if ever a Dem president issued an EO, it could be challenged and the SC decides on it's own whether or not to take it up, no?

(graham obviously isn't gonna amend the constitution with this bill, but any EO will get wrecked in court too -- again, none of this is the point)

good thread imo:

1/ I’ll weigh in here to say a few things about this issue. The first is that this issue is not one that has been directly tested or addressed by our courts. And the final interpretation here rests with #SCOTUS. https://t.co/e1C1d2YjDQ

— Martha S. Jones, JD, PhD (@marthasjones_) October 30, 2018

So disturbing to see republicans in like Iowa's top concern is illegal immigration .All the fucking things to be worried about and this is it? you can see why trumps go to strategy is to scary these people into a frenzy about the impending illegal invasion of rapist and murderers

― (•̪●) (carne asada), Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:13 AM (one hour ago)

I know media fatigue and all, but this was a huge talking point for Tr*mp a few months ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Mollie_Tibbetts

That's a tiny town where the murder occurred, like less than 1,500 people.

"I refuse to give equal weight to every fool thing coming out of this garbage sack's mouth" /= reduced focus or myopia.

what is the thing coming out of his mouth that deserves the most attention? which thing, out of all the hateful things this man spews, is the thing that should be the object of focus?

a dumbass racist birthright citizenship ban exemplifies his ignorant hate. it's a direct insult to the very EXISTENCE of millions of people in this country. it is a fascist policy idea, casually tossed off and bound to be supported by numerous GOP senators beyond Graham. and for anyone with even the most limited capacity to empathize and consider their own family's history and how they came to this country, it's also incredibly hypocritical. so why shouldn't people scream their heads off? so many people are disenfranchised in this country - most of our representatives don't listen to us in any meaningful way. so why not make yourself heard by protesting about something like this? the fact that it's clearly unconstitutional and unlikely to hold up in court doesn't make it irrelevant to protest, it makes it a very easy target to protest.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) added that voters shouldn't take the "bait."

"He’ll say anything before the election. Don’t take the bait. Focus on ending the hate. Hug a kid. Be nice to someone you don’t know or agree with. And vote. Please vote," Klobuchar added.

klobuchar is cool and everything but fuck off with this line of reasoning - please vote (even though you probably already early voted and you probably live in a city so it didn't really mean much) and shut up and hug kids and be nice to white supremacists

This part of her argument doesn’t make sense to me:

6/ A narrowly tailored EO that rested on the view that the children of unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in citizenship terms) and thus not citizens by virtue of Birthright is an argument that can be made.

— Martha S. Jones, JD, PhD (@marthasjones_) October 30, 2018

The idea of rendering a person present in the United States “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is borderline nonsensical and goes against a lot of other Supreme Court precedent.”

In fact, if they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be said to be present illegally? "Illegal" only has meaning for people over whom the law can be exercised.

the fact that it's clearly unconstitutional and unlikely to hold up in court doesn't make it irrelevant to protest, it makes it a very easy target to protest.

and again, putting yet more longstanding white nationalist wishlist items into normalized talking head discourse is as much the point here as whatever watered down version of this might arrive via a post-ruling EO.