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

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

Jack Burkman
@Jack_Burkman
Host of Behind the Curtain, national radio and TV talk show on @newsmaxTV Sat A.M. Registered lobbyist. Conservative News & Commentary, Subscribe to our podcas

finally this monster masquerading as a g-man will be brought to justice

i have to admit that i am loling a bit that burkman is revealing this news at the Rosslyn
Holiday Inn

I want to make this entirely clear: There is ZERO evidence that a woman actually exists in this story. The only people known to be involved are Wohl and Burkman.

— Scott Stedman (@ScottMStedman) October 30, 2018

.@Jack_Burkman is behind a GOP scheme to offer women money to make up stories about Robert Mueller's alleged sexual harassment. The Special Counsel's office has referred the matter to the FBI. I was privy to this scheme. This thread will detail my experience.

— Scott Stedman (@ScottMStedman) October 30, 2018

wait, jacob wohl - that creepy twitter dude who keeps showing up in trump’s mentions? holy lol

guarantee you tomorrow there will be an announcement that the victim no longer wishes to come forward, and they will use some claim of intimidation as reason

it's amusing that they basically played right into it, but not shocking. Wohl is not the sharpest tool in....well....the tools section at Home Depot

he's not even the sharpest tool in the bucket of pool toys

sorry I don't know who we're talking about that joke just occurred to me

Further: @realDonaldTrump WH called the top #PA and #Pittsburgh officials one at a time and lied to each that the others had agreed. WH did the same to #Schumer and #Pelosi. No one bit. WH also trying to push #Trump into hospital rooms of victims but most want no part of him.

— Howard Fineman (@howardfineman) October 30, 2018

whaaaaaaaa? this is so pathetic

Time to put in a call to John Barron!

not the sharpest Wohl, says Sted

Trump would be the most pitiable sad sack in existence if he weren't also nuclear-grade sympathy kryptonite.

wait, jacob wohl - that creepy twitter dude who keeps showing up in trump’s mentions? holy lol

his source must have been hanging out in a hipster coffee shop

that's where i go to talk about *whispers* the resistance

just watched the Acosta/Sanders clip, got a kick out of her at the end with marbles in her mouth, saying "Despact the fite" twice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqk0RAXsEzk

I want to believe in miracles

Compared to the same time period in '14, voters under the age of 30 in Texas have increased their turnout by 508% (not a typo). Voters over the age of 65 in TX increased their turnout by 96%.

— Tom Bonier (@tbonier) October 30, 2018

Despact the fite with covfefe, bigly.

I need to see that tweet again but with actual numbers of voters instead of percentages pls

that seems like good news, but for context we would need to know the raw numbers of voters under 30 and over 65, and the percentage that voted for them in 2014. if barely any young people voted in 2014 and it quintuples in 2018, that might not outweigh the relative large number of older people who voted in 2014 and then doubled that in 2018

xp yep

No numbers! *signs executive order*