-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Contrast, who sounds more excited
Its not about who sounds more excited, its more about who sounds more excited while promoting what.
Right-Tribe States finally start playing The Game
Posts
Total:
98
-->
@Greyparrot
I dunno, there are a lot of people in Texas fighting tyranny right now as per the OP....and plenty of sympathizers in other states....
Why are right wingers so obsessed with convincing themselves they live under tyranny? Do you even know what that word means?
-->
@Double_R
Why are right wingers so obsessed with convincing themselves they live under tyranny? Do you even know what that word means?
Well, I guess having a job, a smartphone, and enough free time to complain all day on the internet counts as living under tyranny for them.
-->
@n8nrgim
the most likely outcome will be that texas will ignore the court order, and the feds and texas will continue with a stand off. texas will for practical purposes do what it wants to do, unless they are forced not to, which i dont think will happen.
I agree this is the most likely outcome, followed by Texas folding and withdrawing its soldiers.
It is no different from the way other states have been ignoring federal laws and supreme court rulings. Yet what I said in the OP remains true. Authority asserted but denied is not a stable situation. The bluffs will grow in frequency and size and if the federal government doesn't start shooting people their authority will collapse.
but it won't warp into a great civil war
I never said civil war was the only outcome. I said it's the only (realistic) outcome where federal authority is preserved.
an immigration crisis isn't a big enough reason to start a war.
...but a tax on tea is?
this is like letting a relatively small argument in a marriage end in divorce.
Large problems are exposed by otherwise small issues. Millions of people have divorced after a chain of events started by a small argument. You prove my point.
so to try to secede or whatever a war would be for, would be, again, stupid. like a baby crying over not getting its way.
For some reason calling people stupid and telling them they're crying like a spoiled baby just doesn't work very well when it comes to convincing them you can live in harmony.
If Donal Trump had invoked the insurrection act and attack the CHAZ, who would you blame for that? Your statement here implies the people of the CHAZ were stupid, like crying babies; but would your solution be the same as Trumps in the real timeline? (To leave them alone)
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm just curious as to what kind of pearls the communist dictator worshiper/adult-child sexual relations apologist thinks he can clutchI mean, technically, you are the one helping Kim Jong Un.So you are more of a communist dictator worshipper here.
Not a very good try.
Contrast, who sounds more excitedIts not about who sounds more excited, its more about who sounds more excited while promoting what.
Greyparrot hasn't promoted anything. I have applauded a change the heralds equality under the law: namely everybody ignores it instead of just left-tribers.
When Donald Trump was elected more than a few left-tribers explained that secession may be necessary and if Trump wins again they will do so again.
No one has blind loyalty to the federal government. Anyone who pretends they do is simply gaslighting the opposition who happen to be out of power at the moment.
You have no foundation for your derision.
Well, I guess having a job, a smartphone, and enough free time to complain all day on the internet counts as living under tyranny for them.
I'm sure the people in an annexed Ukraine would have job, a smartphone, and the ability to complain on the internet (via Tor). You might need a more comprehensive definition of non-tyranny.
-->
@Double_R
Why are right wingers so obsessed with convincing themselves they live under tyranny?
I dunno. Maybe ask a right winger?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
texas is sticking to its guns, but its bluffing if you think it'd wage a war against the USA. it's like a small dude taunting a tough guy, cause the small guys has enough leveerage to know he can get away with it.
maybe i misunderstood you, and you dont think war is the likely outcome. but you do think that texas should be willing to go to war. that's what you said by saying i shouldn't be calling texas stupid like a baby. the thing is, if the usa calls its bluff, texas should back down. maybe texas should continue to bluff if that's in its best interests, but it still should be only a bluff. you actually think an immigration problem is a big enough reason for texas etc to divide the usa through war? in no way does that make sense. if your point is about a trend of federal over reach, you might have a point, but we're a long way from that to be so seriously entertaining the idea that texas should be willing to go to war.
-->
@n8nrgim
I don't think the Texas Governor is going to allow the Feds to Ruby Ridge his national guard without a fight.
-->
@Greyparrot
I dunno. Maybe ask a right winger?
I just did. Why do you keep pretending to be anything else? You sit here all day arguing with left wingers about every issue under the sun while agreeing with every right winger on just about everything. Why are you so dishonest?
-->
@Double_R
Lol, I don't want the Republicans to do their version of tyranny that the Democrats are doing right now. Whatever gave you that idea?
If you think I support right wing tyranny like the patriot act, you are very uninformed.
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
Guys, you make Kim Jong Un smile.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Greyparrot hasn't promoted anything.
Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm sure the people in an annexed Ukraine would have job, a smartphone, and the ability to complain on the internet
Your friend Putin made sure they dont.
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want the Republicans to do their version of tyranny that the Democrats are doing right now. Whatever gave you that idea?
The fact that the idea of "Democratic tyranny" as an accurate depiction of our current state is anything but a ridiculous notion born in right wing propaganda.
Would you like to support that notion using actual facts and logic? No, of course you wouldn't.
No one except for an ignorant brainwashed right winger would say something so absurd.
-->
@n8nrgim
texas is sticking to its guns, but its bluffing if you think it'd wage a war against the USA.
It doesn't need to "wage war against the USA". The next "raise" is fighting federal agents trying to assert the supremacy of federal policy (which happens to be illegal).
It's a lot of bluffs yet until US army is deployed on US soil, and I agree it is unlikely in any particular instance; but I also know that unless something seriously changes in the cultural fracture the problem isn't going away. Given enough trials even unlikely events occur.
If DJT (or similar) gain control of the federal government the show will simply switch to California, Oregon, and Washington.
The differences in moral codes are too great to be governed. The only solution is to force compliance or cease attempting to govern. Since it is a federal system ceasing to govern on these issues does not require dissolving of the union, however; as with all moral beliefs people are so easily tempted to control their neighbors.
For instance the supreme court (being legally correct) struck down Roe v Wade. Did left-tribers say "well fair enough I guess we'll live with the laws we believe in in the states we control".
No, they did not. They want a federal guarantee, and the anti-abortionists want a federal ban. Their fear makes them unwilling to stop fighting for control of the federal government. This is the inevitable result of centralizing power.
maybe i misunderstood you, and you dont think war is the likely outcome.
Not in any particular instance, but ultimately it's fairly likely if other factors remain. Individuals and specific events don't drive these things. People's attitudes do, and the chasm is growing larger by the day. The derision and contempt Sidewinder showed in this thread is representative of millions of people and is the driving force behind the coming conflict.
That is my point. The law means nothing now. It is a plaything for very angry people (getting angrier every day). The law only matters when people believe it is just and sacred and that is not what people in either tribe believe anymore.
For a decade GOP politicians have been in a state of self-delusion. Believing that if they stick to the spirit of the law things will work out. Mike Pence exemplified this when he refused to reject tended electors on Jan 6. "I don't think the founding fathers intended for me to have that power" were his words.
He could not have been more out of touch with the right-tribe at that moment. The right tribe was already convinced (with cause) that the constitution had been ripped up and stomped on by the left-tribe.
What Texas is doing now is already a fulfillment of previous predictions I made, predictions about a path that leads to civil war or peaceful divorce. Ten years ago ignoring the supreme court would have been what normalist like yourself would have said would "never happen".
but you do think that texas should be willing to go to war.
Everyone should be ready to fight for justice. That doesn't work out too well when we can't agree on morality. So we compromise to gain peace. That compromise was the US constitution. The compromise was democracy. The compromise was the law.
I think that compromise has been broken. I didn't want it to be broken. In fact what I want is for us to agree on an objectively correct morality already. BUT given these circumstances Texas has every right to use force against the federal government and so does every individual.
So yes.
that's what you said by saying i shouldn't be calling texas stupid like a baby.
I don't think you should be calling anyone in the throes of deep resentment a stupid baby. I know there are many right-tribers who indulge in such behavior but they're making enemies and making existing enemies more bitter.
They say that people these days don't know what it's like to be punched in the face, and there is a big kernel of truth in that. We achieved a society where people are very isolated from the hate they induce and while the lack of violence and revenge is a good thing this consequence may be a ticking time bomb in the end.
I've seen plenty on the right tribe like sidewinder. When you combine sidewinder's contempt with Korea's ignorance you get a very dangerous combination. Contempt for the other and total ignorance of how much it will hurt when it comes to blows.
This is where all the boys ripe for slaughter come from. They go to war defiant and happy and they come home broken. This is the difference between ignorance and knowledge.
These matters are deadly serious. Even if you can't see why, even if you're right and the other guy is delusional. Don't mock them. They may be standing over you with a gun some day.
you actually think an immigration problem is a big enough reason for texas etc to divide the usa through war? in no way does that make sense.
If you subdivide a problem and look at the details enough times it will always seem trivial.
Texas joined a federation. The federation has laws about immigration. The federal government is violating those laws. All checks and balances have failed to remedy that problem.
That is the real problem.
we're a long way from that to be so seriously entertaining the idea that texas should be willing to go to war.
Yet not so far away from the waterfall as to be able to claim ignorance.
-->
@Double_R
And I suppose you think the Patriot Act is just fine and dandy. Who is the real Republican here?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
i may be misinterpreting your points here and there, but at most you should just be saying the conditions are worsening in what may some day result in a war or dissolution. instead you are getting hyperbolic ideas of federal authority soon possibly collapsing (your words) and implying war or such is at hand. i understand you are trying to make a point, but i think you are taking your ideas too far, like a radical or maybe an extremist. i know you disagree, though
Abbot just said on Fox News that Texas wants to withdraw from the Union !
-->
@FLRW
Well said.
-->
@n8nrgim
i think you are taking your ideas too far, like a radical or maybe an extremist.
I don't care about "radical" or "extremist" these words are meant to marginalize ideas and people but they don't have any logical meaning except to say something is far from the norm. Since the norm is no guarantee of truth or morality that is neither here nor there.
The question is whether I am wrong. To know if I'm wrong about morality requires a moral debate. To know if I'm wrong about the dynamics requires either a debate about sociology or simple patience.
I think we will all live to see a day when a hundred people are killed for political reasons per day in the United States of America. Call me out if I'm wrong.
i know you disagree, though
Yep
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
i think for your overall point to be valid, you would have to explicitly show a strong trend where federal over reach is occurring, and that it's worth sacrificing the greatest country in history. you aren't doing a good job showing that trend, aside from a few conservative talking points, and you aren't showing how those existing infractions are sufficient to dissolve the country. i dont mean to keep keep insulting, but i see it that way, like it's a baby crying cause he doesn't get his way. i mean i can see why you're upset, you have a case for that, and how maybe trump could have or should have sent troops to sancturary cities (and all the liberal hypocrisy) but i dont think you are establishing the central points very well.
-->
@n8nrgim
i think for your overall point to be valid, you would have to explicitly show a strong trend where federal over reach is occurring, and that it's worth sacrificing the greatest country in history.
You're still casting it in the wrong terms. "Worth sacrificing X".
You used marriage as an analogy.
If Mary says that you should get the mail every morning but you think every other day is fine, that's a minor disagreement. Is it "worth divorcing" over?
Most would say no.
However suppose Mary won't let it go. Every single day and night. Then she stops sleeping with you until you agree to get the mail every day. Then she starts spending money out of your joint account and when you confront her she says "Should have got the mail every day". Then she sleeps with other men.
Then you file for a divorce, and she tells the judge "All this over who gets the mail, isn't he petty!" Now it started with a disagreement over who gets the mail, but that doesn't mean that a disagreement over mail caused it. The cause was how both parties reacted to the disagreement.
So let's get back to the real situation, which may or may not escalate; and as I said probably won't escalate to an actual move for secession:
Will defending the Rio Grande "sacrifice the greatest country in history"?
No. So Texas isn't "sacrificing the greatest country in history" by defending the border.
Is trying to federalize the Texas national guard "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? No, getting warmer
Is refusing to allow the Texas national guard "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? No, getting warmer
Is the federal government sending swat teams to arrest high officers of Texas "sacrificing the greatest country in history?" Getting a lot warmer
Is the Texas national guard intercepting federal agents who were abducting Texas officers before they escape Texas and under gunpoint freeing their men and arresting those federal agents on charges of armed abduction, sedition, etc...etc.. "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? Almost there
Is the federal government declaring Texas to be in a state of rebellion and mobilizing the army to occupy the state "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? Yea pretty much.
By presuming Texas has to be making a choice that "some illegal immigration is worth destroying the united states" you are ignoring all the steps the federal government needs to take between point A and point B.
The feds have to agree it's worth it, and ultimately start shooting. They won't say "we did this over razor wire" they will say they did it to preserve "the laws of the united states" (hilariously since they're breaking the law). You pretend as if there is no responsibility there.
you aren't showing how those existing infractions are sufficient to dissolve the country
They're sufficient for Texas to defend the border and defy the supreme court ruling that POTUS can choose to the exact opposite of the law if he wants to (despite ruling the otherwise many times before).
Whether that leads to the dissolution of the union is not on Texas' shoulders.
If the federal government would rather wage war than enforce their own laws (or even let others enforce them), then yes it's a sufficient cause because any such lawless entity no longer deserves to exist. Maybe if they were breaking the law to bring about an objectively more moral system there could be an argument, but breaking the law because of some idiotic notion that it's racist to make people go through checkpoints or a nefarious plan to change the demographics? No it would be entirely the feds fault under these circumstances.
i dont mean to keep keep insulting, but i see it that way, like it's a baby crying cause he doesn't get his way.
In what way? Because the next thing you say is "i mean i can see why you're upset, you have a case for that" so it's not like a baby in that there is no basis for it.
Is it like a baby because babies are powerless? Texas may not be a world superpower but I think it's a bit ridiculous to call any group of people with a battleship, A10 warthogs, Abrams tanks, and 16 million potential infantry "helpless as a baby"
maybe trump could have or should have sent troops to sancturary cities
I never said should have. I said under left-tribe logic, which is the logic of "if there is even the slightest hint of legal justification and it lets us enforce our agenda then do it".
What needs to happen is a system of consequences for violating the US constitution. Personal consequences, for all those involved along the chain of command.
-->
@Double_R
I don't want the Republicans to do their version of tyranny that the Democrats are doing right now. Whatever gave you that idea?The fact that the idea of "Democratic tyranny" as an accurate depiction of our current state is anything but a ridiculous notion born in right wing propaganda.Would you like to support that notion using actual facts and logic? No, of course you wouldn't.No one except for an ignorant brainwashed right winger would say something so absurd.
There must be a reason that all fascists say that though, it's right out of the fascist playbook.
Are you saying that all fascists are "ignorant and brainwashed"?
Maybe not, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a fascist is just a fascist.
-->
@Sidewalker
There must be a reason that all fascists say that though, it's right out of the fascist playbook.
It's called, "when the people in charge screw you and laugh."
-->
@Greyparrot
There must be a reason that all fascists say that though, it's right out of the fascist playbook.It's called, "when the people in charge screw you and laugh."
Just remember folks, there is nothing more fascist than dismantling government attack squads who have been accused of political arrests.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I took for granted that u were right about the law in this situation. It looks like the feds and Supreme Court r right. But I think u could make a moral argument in being right. Is your position more legal or moral? But, even if u r right morally, it's still Texas firing the first shot, so to speak
-->
@n8nrgim
Nobody has fired shots yet. The feds have promised to use force to remove razor wire and Texas has promised to use force to protect the razor wire.
It's likely the Feds will shoot first, going by the history of violence with Federal agencies.
-->
@n8nrgim
I took for granted that u were right about the law in this situation. It looks like the feds and Supreme Court r right.
You're going to have to be more specific.
Is your position more legal or moral?
Legal: Congress passed laws on immigration outlining immigration limits, application for entry, asylum, visas, and citizenship. The current executive regime is not only failing to enforce those laws (in violation of their oaths) but are in some cases facilitating the direct breaking of those laws (by providing illegal migrants with transport and logistics, apparently to the point of choosing end points in some cases)
(iii) Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution(I) In generalSubject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review.
This law does not grant the executive branch the leeway to order officers to make a certain determination or keep firing them until they find someone who always makes a determination of preference regardless of the facts.
There is no credible fear of persecution in Mexico. Keep mind persecution must be based on religion, politics, ethnicity, something like that. Being a human being that cartels want to enslave doesn't qualify. This is the law. It's open to interpretation, but absurd interpretations mean you're breaking the law.
Even you accepted the lie that these people are eligible for asylum under the law:
(ii) Referral of certain aliensIf the officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning of clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.
Furthermore those migrants who lie about being persecuting are commiting a crime, and they cannot be paroled either:
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of factsAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
If you are familiar with legalize "shall" is not an option. Any intentional failure to fine or imprison an alien who has lied about their status (and they must lie in order to apply for asylum without being persecuted) is a violation of the law and of the oath. Not only for Biden, but everyone in the chain of command down to the border patrol officer.
So why do they think they can just cut the razor wire and bus people to Chicago?
(5)(A) The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.
They are paroling everybody from mandatory detention, on a "case by case" basis for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit"
What are these "urgent humanitarian reasons"? Well they'd get hungry and cold sitting on the Mexican side of the border.
This interpretation of the law is absurd because it implies that anyone who is willing to sit on your border is entitled to be paroled into the country for an unspecified amount of time because certain executive bureaucrats can gaslight each other into claiming "persecution".
Everybody gets hungry. If being hungry because you made a trip based on the willingness of the Biden admin to lie about persecution is a humanitarian crises then people from Switzerland could be paroled into the US because hey, they get hungry too.
Moral: When a government becomes a greater detriment than help in securing objective rights it is the right of every person to disobey that government and to defend himself and others from attacks by that government meant to coerce his obedience.
A government that purports to be regulated by democratic means, and which ignores the laws passed by the (purportedly) democratically elected representatives of the people, is no longer regulated and has become a danger to the rights of the people.
Moral: A social contract is a contract and as such an agreement that can be breached. Contracts can contain duties and entitlements. A duty for party A is an entitlement for party B. The US constitution is a social contract (if it is anything of moral significance). Despite the fact that it has not been signed by each citizen (as a contract must be to be valid) it is the nearest thing to justifying a need to obey the federal government. When the federal government fails its duties other parties are denied their entitlements.
If the federal government as a duty to defend against invasion for example, then failing to do so breaks the social contract and absolves the states of any duties they may have including a duty to let federal soldiers run around their state doing whatever they please.
But, even if u r right morally, it's still Texas firing the first shot, so to speak
Not in terms of left vs right agendas. If ignoring supreme court interpretation of federal law is a "shot" sanctuary cities and the attempts to ban magazine, gun kits, and stocks were all the first shots.
In terms of just border policy the first people who broke the law were the federal government.
In terms of social contract the federal government has violated the terms of the constitution by ignoring the mechanism for national defense which delegates from Texas voted on.
-------------------------
Note that I don't believe the is an absolute objective justification for immigration constraints. Land can't be owned and thus free movement is a corollary right of the immorality of attacking travelers.
However when determining who is in the right what the parties are trying to do and why matters.
If Germany had attacked Poland in 1940 because the Poles repeatedly refused to reduce their taxes, Germany would have been right to do so. Instead they attacked so they could steal everything and kill a third of the population. So the same attack was wrong because of intention.
A moral government would necessarily have to mitigate the interaction with territories controlled by immoral governments to prevent said interactions from being vectors of attack.
If the US was a moral government (where everyone agreed with my policy proposals), and we didn't have the means to integrate mass migration into our economy I would proclaim this binding policy: We accept economic refugees without question, but we count every one and where they came from. We assign points proportional to the excess of what we have determined we can integrate. When we get to 5X the number we have set for integration, we invade and annex the country of origin with the most points.
In this case it would most likely be Guatemala.
Simple, self-regulting solution: If your country is such a shithole that millions of your people are coming to us to escape it, more than we can handle, we'll fix your country.
They'll stop themselves, and if they don't then they really do need a change of government.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If Germany had attacked Poland in 1940 because the Poles repeatedly refused to reduce their taxes, Germany would have been right to do so.
Lol
If the US was a moral government (where everyone agreed with my policy proposals), and we didn't have the means to integrate mass migration into our economy I would proclaim this binding policy: We accept economic refugees without question, but we count every one and where they came from. We assign points proportional to the excess of what we have determined we can integrate. When we get to 5X the number we have set for integration, we invade and annex the country of origin with the most points.
Lol
-->
@Greyparrot
And I suppose you think the Patriot Act is just fine and dandy. Who is the real Republican here?
lol
Yeah great point GP, looks like I'm the republican and you are to my left.
I don't know why you bother, you can't think anyone here is reading your nonsense and thinking it makes sense.