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

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.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/2018-elections-house-democrats-momentum-kavanaugh-confirmation-947789

In a way, the efficacy of Trump's proposed EO is almost beside the point. Every time he starts in on some talking point like this using his platform as the goddamn POTUS, it serves to normalize the notion just a little more among a certain swath of the populace who will treat it with legitimacy regardless of its constitutionality. It demands vocal resistance.

i think the argument re: "take the bait" = we have no Executive Order to react to, nor proposed legislation from Lindsay Graham, and while this is a thing that scares all of us, there isn't much that can be done *at the moment* when it is still mere conjecture.

Any amount of proactive "the President MUST not do this" hemming and hawing from Congressmen has zero to no impact on what the President winds up doing and only seeks to keep that debate as the primary focus of the 24 hour news cycle, and allows them to control the flow of news. even if he were to pass the EO, the only action that could (and would) be immediately taken was the court challenge. and while it's true that the immigration 'ban' did get held up in court, the battle is much more uphill for this EO, which would be requiring the Supreme Court to agree with a very narrow reading of the 14th amendment, that few scholars agree with. It's unlikely a Gorsuch would bite (maybe Kavanaugh) - esp given the precedent it would set for decades to come, with their names attached.

I don't presume to speak for Alfred, but I think his point was "people should already be protesting the existing terrible things the administration is already doing", not suggesting nobody new should join ranks.

if the answer to the question "is there a motherfucking thing I can do right now to prevent any further talk of this EO and to get Lindsay graham to stfu" is "no", I am choosing *at the moment* not to expend excess energy on it, with an option to change my mind later. Not demanding anybody else react similarly, but my mental state is already at the point of near collapse as it is so it's a must for me.

where we keep getting hung up every time this keeps coming up ITT is people interpreting others as telling them they should or should not be reacting the way they are specifically choosing to react. sometimes I think the sentiment is less this but more one of reassurance, but obviously one could be forgiven for not reading it that way, esp in high-stress times like these.

^^^otm

but yes, I realize it's less the reality of the EO and or legislation actually passing and more the continued dog whistles such statements keep sending to Trump's rabid, violent base, and how it will continue to make those marginalized or people defending those marginalized less safe as a whole.

things like this are why I keep making the average voter aware of what's going on in Hungary and Poland atm.....

as far as the Kavanaugh stuff and GOP momentum vis a vis the midterms, i think the fact that he was confirmed in the end took a little bit of the wind out of the sails. i'm still a bit surprised they didn't sacrifice him and play up how he was blocked by the Dems, but then again I'm not Mitch McConnell thank christ, i don't have his mind for lib-owning strategy.

"So the idea of 'birthright citizenship, but only for people who are here legally' — well, it lets his State Department and his Department of Homeland Security look at anyone and go: what if your parents were legal? What if your grandparents weren't? They can go up a bloodline.

"And to be VERY CLEAR, I'm not saying they will go up the chain of your ancestors looking for someone whose citizenship they can prove is invalid under the 'clarified' rule. I'm saying they will say one of your ancestors was 'illegal' and then you have to prove otherwise.

"They have been testing this! They have been doing this to people in the 100-mile Constitutional 'no go' zone around the border, they have been doing it in smaller parcels further inland. They have been questioning citizenship and then challenging people to prove them wrong.

"There's no due process because there's no accusation of a crime, just supposition of a status. They can ignore any evidence because part of the narrative is: people have been falsifying things.

"Obviously this is going to fall disproportionately on people of color and especially people with Spanish or Arabic last names. But it's a tool they can use to strip citizenship (and thus voting rights, among other things) from ANYBODY they deem a problem.

So, to be clear, when Trump and Graham talk about "ending birthright citizenship". they don't mean throwing out the 14th amendment or ending the practice of giving citizenship to people born here.

They're talking about being selective about it. The order will "clarify" it.

— Alexandraah! Scarin’ (@alexandraerin) October 30, 2018

McConnell understood that shifting the court to five reliable conservatives for at least a decade was much more valuable than retaining the House in a mid-term election. He's done all the damage he could and is probably feeling pretty smug about the tax cuts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. He never really cared much about repealing the ACA, except insofar as it was a good talking point during elections for a while.

good posts, Neanderthal, thanks. especially your point about the difficulty distinguishing between reassurance and shushing. i do sometimes have difficulty with that, at least online.

i just imagine standing next to someone who would stand to lose their citizenship through this EO. it's not too hard to imagine; some of us ARE that person. and they're freaking out. would you just stand there with your arms folded, muttering "it's just a distraction. keep focused on the major issues. at least wait til they issue the actual EO"?

"They have been testing this! They have been doing this to people in the 100-mile Constitutional 'no go' zone around the border, they have been doing it in smaller parcels further inland. They have been questioning citizenship and then challenging people to prove them wrong.

fuck me, i've been hearing about this a lot in the valley in south texas

I apologize if I came off as if I were shushing anyone, you may all freak out about anything you like *signs executive order*

worth mentioning that 200 million people live within 100 miles of the border

xps exactly, Hoos. that whole thread is worth a read.

can someone just start announcing weekly rallies on Saturdays? are we really gonna wait til Jan 20th for the next one? why are MoveOn etc just sleeping on this?

wow alfred just brazenly flouting the ILX constitution

i must protest

probably too late to add much of interest, but as a naturalized US citizen the "normalization of eroding the definition of citizenship"* argument for taking this seriously carries a lot of weight, though I also recognize the ham-fisted media manipulation for what it is.

I might have posted this before, but this Masha Gessen piece has really stuck with me: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/in-america-naturalized-citizens-no-longer-have-an-assumption-of-permanence.

* an erosion that predates Trump, but electing a birther was always going to make this significantly worse.

I think a lot of my skepticism that the EO will ever show up comes from the fact that Trump has recently taken to just lying and saying he passed/got rid of laws when he actually didn't: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-told-christian-leaders-he-got-rid-law-he-didn-n904471

Maybe I'm wrong (and dear God am I hoping so), but there have been a number of times where he's talked about a proposed EO just so it'll get picked up in the media, and those people with selective memories will misremember that it was actually issued and happened, and it'll look like yet another accomplishment for his administration. and if this is used as evidence of his administration's wrongdoing, then he'll say "uh uh, I didn't actually do it, see?".

at this point, I've kind of lost faith in how to fight it, because one of the following happens:

1) <b>Challenge the legality of the EO</b> - Trump ignores the legality question, frames it as "Liberals are trying to continue to give illegals citizenship rights and put us all in danger.", which doesn't really move the needle much outside of his base, but possibly enough to siphon some votes from idiot "independents"

2) <b>Take to the streets and non-violently protest</b> - this one definitely, but it's been happening, but it hasn't stopped this government from doing what it wants.

3) <b>Ignore it</b> - Then he does wind up doing it, it gets challenged in court, and overturned. Trump turns it into narrative of how Democratic, activist, unelected judges are subverting the will of the people. See point #1.

4) <b>Take to the streets and violently protest</b> - guessing this is around the corner.

None of which is to say the above four responses are things that people *shouldn't* do, because the perceived efficacy of an action shouldn't stop someone from still taking said action. Just that when thinking about a *solution* to the issue at hand, it doesn't help that we're on a skewed playing field.

I'm guessing those that do #3 do so because of the perceived failures of approach #1, and vice versa, but the problems aren't the approach, the problem is they're being used against a fucking autocrat-in-training and our country is fucking stupid and has no experience with autocracy so they don't recognize it when they see it.

goddamn my incorrect BBcode formatting

#1 should be "proactively challenge"

I'd like to see the president prolapsively challenged.

a scheme

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/special-counsel-refers-scheme-targeting-mueller-to-fbi/574411/

now *that's* some ratfucking

speaking of mueller, the non-stop stream of leaks (...nm) on the trump investigation seems to have slowed over the past several weeks. i guess we are to assume that things are pretty much wrapped up, they're just waiting til after the elections to move forward?

I immediately wondered who was ready to bankroll the payoff for those false allegations. If it wasn't coming directly out of Burkman's pocket, then you've got a criminal conspiracy.

Money's on Chuck Woolery

This tweet is ratio-ing pretty amazingly:

Some sad news. On Thursday, November 1, at the Rosslyn
Holiday Inn at noon, we will reveal the first of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's sex assault victims. I applaud the courage and dignity and
grace and strength of my client. pic.twitter.com/wZVQeHD45r

— Jack Burkman (@Jack_Burkman) October 30, 2018

the prolonged pause on breathless Mueller-related speculation has been one of the few bright spots of the last few weeks