The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[SheepDog4Life]

This SacBee article seeks to pooh-pooh that "radical environmentalists" are in any way culpable for the tinderbox conditions due to lawsuits preventing prudent forest management. But, in doing so "admits" that they had done so for decades, only "in recent years" relenting somewhat.

So, yeah, those lawsuits to "protect" deadwood and underbrush for the "benefit" of spotted owl habitat and such WERE contributing factors to the "decades of forest mismanagement".

The Sacramento Bee: Fact Check: Trump administration blames ‘radical’ environmentalists as Camp Fire toll rises. Experts disagree
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article221953750.html

 

[jamil]

As far as I am concerned, Matt Bevin stock just went up...

His response started out very promising. He got a lot of things right. But then he reached into his ideological ******* to make it about video games and erase most of the things he got right. Ideologues just can’t not blame their ideological demons for every evil.

He got it right that it’s a sort of cultural values issue. He got it right that if there is just one thing wrong (there isn’t), it’s that there is a sort of cultural evolution toward devaluing human life, or at least the lives of people you don’t like. Then he lays all of that at the foot of videogames?

 

[Mongo59]

I live dangerously close to the Kentucky border. The local news around here treats Gov Bevin much like the MSM treats Trump. Since I don't have a dog in their fight I treated it with general apathy. But after hearing him carry on a conversation, even if he strayed into the corner occasionally, I was impressed.

It is not so much the total content as it was that he didn't go into a string of power phrases with a song and dance. He actually said what he thought without a teleprompter. Most others in his position carry a load of BS large enough to fertilize the Sinai.

But I admit that now-a-days I am easily impressed. Anyone who engages me in a conversation without texting on there phone at the same time, to me, is now impressive...

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...eat-on-senate-judiciary-committee-report-says

Republican control of the Senate could allow some "inside baseball" type moves, like reducing the size of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That can achieve a couple things:
- Remove a soapbox from a potential rival (Harris).
- Streamline the advise/consent process by taking a couple senators out of the spotlight-search.

I kinda don't care how this goes, but am fascinated by the machinations involved.

 

[jamil]

It's a pragmatic necessity. But I wish there were a competent demolition architect to most efficiently and thoroughly dismantle the Democratic Party. The ideologues really need to be purged from both parties, but right now the Dems are most dangerous to the Republic.

 

[T.Lex]

It's a pragmatic necessity. But I wish there were a competent demolition architect to most efficiently and thoroughly dismantle the Democratic Party. The ideologues really need to be purged from both parties, but right now the Dems are most dangerous to the Republic.

I think that depends on how you define "Republican."

 

[T.Lex]

This popped up on my feed, and is pretty fascinating. I think INGO reflects a certain amount of this effect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-political-opinions-change/

Why do attitudes shift in our experiment? The difference is that when faced with the false-feedback people are free from the motives that normally lead them to defend themselves or their ideas from external criticism. Instead they can consider the benefits of the alternative position.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This popped up on my feed, and is pretty fascinating. I think INGO reflects a certain amount of this effect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-political-opinions-change/

iMO, fairly "random" choices are not the same as thought out opinions grounded upon principles. Choosing between two random strangers' pictures or two pairs of pants is not the same as, say, life experience with socialized medicine that informs someone that the utopian grass on the other side of the fence is not greener for articulable reasons.

 

[T.Lex]

iMO, fairly "random" choices are not the same as thought out opinions grounded upon principles. Choosing between two random strangers' pictures or two pairs of pants is not the same as, say, life experience with socialized medicine that informs someone that the utopian grass on the other side of the fence is not greener for articulable reasons.

Agreed, but something more... abstract... like, let's say... the propriety of Executive Orders. I think that kind of thing is more malleable.

In fact, I think the effect informs how people can react differently to the same action, depending on whether it is from "their team" or not. It isn't really about principles at all. (Too often.)

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Agreed, but something more... abstract... like, let's say... the propriety of Executive Orders. I think that kind of thing is more malleable.

In fact, I think the effect informs how people can react differently to the same action, depending on whether it is from "their team" or not. It isn't really about principles at all. (Too often.)

So, for improper EO's, my example would be Obama's DACA EO. Prosecutorial discretion allowed him to decide to not expend DoJ/ICE resources deporting certain classes of illegal immigrants. Agree or not with the policy, it was within his executive powers. Where did the power to make those illegally present under the law recipients of work permits, etc only allowed to those with legal status? He usurped the legislature's role when Congress would not give him what he wanted.

Do you have an example of improper EO's that support INGO mainstream policy choices? Equally egregious, but in the opposite direction?

ETA: A hypothetical would be something like building a "road" next to the border and claiming that a "wall" is necessary and that highway funds could be used for it... when Congress won't pass border wall funds. I support a wall, but not that way.

 

[T.Lex]

So, for improper EO's, my example would be Obama's DACA EO. Prosecutorial discretion allowed him to decide to not expend DoJ/ICE resources deporting certain classes of illegal immigrants. Agree or not with the policy, it was within his executive powers. Where did the power to make those illegally present under the law recipients of work permits, etc only allowed to those with legal status? He usurped the legislature's role when Congress would not give him what he wanted.

Do you have an example of improper EO's that support INGO mainstream policy choices? Equally egregious, but in the opposite direction?

ETA: A hypothetical would be something like building a "road" next to the border and claiming that a "wall" is necessary and that highway funds could be used for it... when Congress won't pass border wall funds. I support a wall, but not that way.

The closest I can get, while not exactly an EO, is the bumpstock movement by Trump.

Although, now that I think about it, Trump's EOs about restricting visas from certain countries is comparable. If he has the power to do that, Obama probably had the power to do what he did, too.

 

[Fargo]

The closest I can get, while not exactly an EO, is the bumpstock movement by Trump.

Although, now that I think about it, Trump's EOs about restricting visas from certain countries is comparable. If he has the power to do that, Obama probably had the power to do what he did, too.

How were those comparable? I see a fundamental difference between visa restrictions done under an authorization of Congress versus a wholly made up quasi-naturalization system.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The closest I can get, while not exactly an EO, is the bumpstock movement by Trump.

No need to limit this to EO's.

And, you are right about the use of regulatory bureaucracy to categorize bump-stocks as NFA machine guns. The law is very clear in defining a machine gun as more than one discharge for a single pull of the trigger. Whatever a a bumpstock is, it doesn't make a machine gun by the legal definition, so Trump's administration is writing new law, unconstitutionally.

Although, now that I think about it, Trump's EOs about restricting visas from certain countries is comparable. If he has the power to do that, Obama probably had the power to do what he did, too.

How were those comparable? I see a fundamental difference between visa restrictions done under an authorization of Congress versus a wholly made up quasi-naturalization system.

I agree with Fargo 100%, T, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Congress explicitly authorized the President to restrict visas, and particularly for the final iteration, developed a set of rules that were directly connected to the words and spirit of that legislation to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens”.

There was no such legislation authorizing Obama to grant legal status to DACA recipients, only the executives constitutional prerogative to not prosecute and deport. Nothing allowed him to change their legal status.

 

[T.Lex]

No need to limit this to EO's.

And, you are right about the use of regulatory bureaucracy to categorize bump-stocks as NFA machine guns. The law is very clear in defining a machine gun as more than one discharge for a single pull of the trigger. Whatever a a bumpstock is, it doesn't make a machine gun by the legal definition, so Trump's administration is writing new law, unconstitutionally.

And yet, consistent with the theme of the article, where is the outrage from the Trump supporters? I'm not seeing it here on INGO, nor in the MSM - which actually did cover the fight against gun control. The response is muted, IMHO.

In the context of that article, I think it is because peoples' view on that issue is malleable.

I agree with Fargo 100%, T, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Congress explicitly authorized the President to restrict visas, and particularly for the final iteration, developed a set of rules that were directly connected to the words and spirit of that legislation to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens”.

There was no such legislation authorizing Obama to grant legal status to DACA recipients, only the executives constitutional prerogative to not prosecute and deport. Nothing allowed him to change their legal status.

How were those comparable? I see a fundamental difference between visa restrictions done under an authorization of Congress versus a wholly made up quasi-naturalization system.

So here's a shock: I disagree.

First, let me be clear in my disagreement - I think both sets of EOs were "legitimate" in the sense that POTUS has the power to do these things. I think both were/are bad policy, built on a terrible foundation of executive agency rulemaking.

Having said that, though, DACA (which I think is what we're talking about) was an enforcement program. Meet certain criteria, and the rules would be enforced a certain way. There was an absence of specificity in the legislation that allowed for it - an absence that continues. POTUS has the power, in the immigration context, to exercise discretion in a bazillion different ways. DACA is one of them. Or really, a set of them.

Likewise, in the visa ban, Congress didn't say which countries, or really even what criteria. It gave POTUS discretion, which he probably has anyway for national security and foreign policy reasons. (That's going from memory, so if there's more to it than that, I'm open to the text that you're referring to.)

Both EOs established enforcement rationales that are exercises in executive discretion.

 

[AtTheMurph]

 

[Mongo59]

Either she is very short or the guy she is shooting at is very tall because her facial expression tells me she is going for the goobers...

 

[actaeon277]

Either she is very short or the guy she is shooting at is very tall because her facial expression tells me she is going for the goobers...

Never seen a woman at the range do that?
Cause I have.

Seems like almost EVERY time.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Never seen a woman at the range do that?
Cause I have.

Seems like almost EVERY time.

You mean making that face, or going for the goobers??

 

[actaeon277]

You mean making that face, or going for the goobers??

Yes.







both. Though I will say, they usually don't look quite like her.

 

[Fargo]

And yet, consistent with the theme of the article, where is the outrage from the Trump supporters? I'm not seeing it here on INGO, nor in the MSM - which actually did cover the fight against gun control. The response is muted, IMHO.

In the context of that article, I think it is because peoples' view on that issue is malleable.





So here's a shock: I disagree.

First, let me be clear in my disagreement - I think both sets of EOs were "legitimate" in the sense that POTUS has the power to do these things. I think both were/are bad policy, built on a terrible foundation of executive agency rulemaking.

Having said that, though, DACA (which I think is what we're talking about) was an enforcement program. Meet certain criteria, and the rules would be enforced a certain way. There was an absence of specificity in the legislation that allowed for it - an absence that continues. POTUS has the power, in the immigration context, to exercise discretion in a bazillion different ways. DACA is one of them. Or really, a set of them.

Likewise, in the visa ban, Congress didn't say which countries, or really even what criteria. It gave POTUS discretion, which he probably has anyway for national security and foreign policy reasons. (That's going from memory, so if there's more to it than that, I'm open to the text that you're referring to.)

Both EOs established enforcement rationales that are exercises in executive discretion.

This is what I am referring to.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/learningenglish.voanews.com/amp/3394275.html

Not the delay or forbearance of deportation, the creation of some sort of non-statutory legal status.