Citizens being deported has been part of the incoming CBP head's rhetoric for weeks - where he blatantly says that if a family has citizens and undocumented migrants in it, the citizens should leave with the undocumented migrants to keep the family together. To punish the citizens apparently. Once that starts, its a not very slippery slope for them to be rounded up and shipped out without due process.
As a student of the modern history of Central America, I would posit that your rosy ideas about democracy are rapidly becoming a quaint notion of history. And if Fetterman continues to back irresponsible GOP positions because Democrats continue to learn the wrong lessons, no we are not better off.
I'm yelling at us about not meeting our obligations to the homeless. Of course you knew that already and went down your road anyway, because perish the thought that someone else gets to set the terms of the debate around here.
Like Koz you seem to think you get to decide who plays and who doesn't and what they say and what they don't. When Mike Dwyer brought me round here I was convinced I had found decent place of caring if politically opposite people. All these years later he's gone and I'm left with a bunch of conservatives who think parading as libertarians would have made them cooler in middle school.
meanwhile our nation is literally burning, and it's more important to you to try and derail everything anyone says then admit they might be right.
And when those concessions lead to both citizen deportations without redress and a hobbled federal executive forever bogged down by lawsuits what then?
Much as I detest Jaybird's Divorce or War quip, I'm beginning to believe We would all be better off without Texas.
Just because they aren't doing it Jaybird's way doesn't mean they are screwing it up.
That aside, the Bill of Right is about individual citizens, not a subordinate level of government.
Again - the way for Texas to address the issue as a state is to have its congressional delegation appropriate and authorize while conducting oversight through public hearings. Its quite telling that Congress wants to hand off more of its responsibilities to others.
I didn't say that. I said we start to cause problem when we criminalize certain types of things. Economic homelessness is not usually in the control of the homeless person - if it were they would have avoided it. But making their actions of seeking stable shelter in public spaces criminal (which is what camp clearing does) worsens their situation, and breaks the societal bonds they need most as their economic situation deteriorates.
Simply paying taxes and wanting to be left alone is nice, but it doesn't prevent criminalization of things like economic homelessness, nor does it help society remain cohesive. It fact, I'd argue its a driver of declining social trust.
This is not a redress of grievances issue - its a sovereign immunity issue. The Constitution grants the federal government sole control over borders, immigration and war making. Congress then appropriates to the executive such monies as Congress (not the Executive) deems warranted to perform those duties. The Executive then implements those responsibilities within those constraints.
Texas not liking that there is not more border enforcement is nice, but the way to impact that is to have Texas Congressional representation assure proper funding and oversight. Diverting federal public funds to answer Texas in court every time a decision has to be made won't actually change how DHS does its job unless Congress appropriates funds differently.
Criminals by their nature are ditching their obligations to society. Problems arise, however, when things beyond a person's control (like lack of employment opportunity or economic homelessness) are criminalized.
A different problem exists for teachers and other civil servants who are stretched too thin and woefully underresoruced against their required actions. They are bending over backwards to meet societal obligations but stymied by forces beyond their control.
As usual, dismally so, the Democrats have learned all the wrong lessons from their very small Senate and House defeats this election cycle. Thus they are still trying to be Republican light on important things like immigration. The worst part of this is that granting states standing to sue over federal performance in immigration enforcement is yet another blow to federalism.
I generally think the only way to win with Trump is not to play but Democratic Party politicians are pathologically incapable of just sitting back even if there is a part of me that thinks “Okay, you say you can work with Trump on kitchen sink issues but how is that going to help when he puts Congress in permanent recess like a would be Charles I.”
We are already seeing this play out with Democratic support of the horrible immigration bill that is moving from the House to the Senate.
The January 6th Attack was neither vague nor a difference of opinion. Trump's desire to reward those doing violence on his behalf doesn't mean we should all move on, and his abuse of the pardon power in this manor - if it happens - will still be wrong no matter who or how much protest erupts after it.
ATF is likely the only agency big enough - and with enough experts - to examine multiple origin sites simultaneously. And just because there is a routine post-fire investigation doesn't mean arson will be found. They are covering all the bases, which is a welcome thing - or so I'd think.
On this you and I agree. And on the very rare occasion a "science journalist" is any good, they are usually fired first when a round of layoffs comes down.
Is it possible that once, just once, you could let something be? I mean seriously - What was the point of calling this out and calling them Republican trolls? Or lambasting the song? What good does any of that do? What the iterated game you think this illustrates?
Or did you just decide between your All bran and your coffee to majorly troll today?
What I mean is that instead of subscribing to the current fashion of growing ever larger profits quarter over quarter, they return to delivering steady and consistent profits. Which then means the same amount of premiums, even from customers in higher danger zones, allows them to cover those losses.
The alternative is driving a collapse in the housing industry (at a time when we already have increasing economic homelessness) because banks require insurance to secure mortgages. Insurance knew this was coming and could have priced accordingly. They still could. They are presently refusing to do so.
They could do just that but it would result in a slight drop in year over year profits, which is what they see as their fiduciary responsibility. No just returning a profit, but returning maximum profit every quarter and thus every year. Because eventually if they follow the road they are on they won't exist as an industry.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
Citizens being deported has been part of the incoming CBP head's rhetoric for weeks - where he blatantly says that if a family has citizens and undocumented migrants in it, the citizens should leave with the undocumented migrants to keep the family together. To punish the citizens apparently. Once that starts, its a not very slippery slope for them to be rounded up and shipped out without due process.
"
As a student of the modern history of Central America, I would posit that your rosy ideas about democracy are rapidly becoming a quaint notion of history. And if Fetterman continues to back irresponsible GOP positions because Democrats continue to learn the wrong lessons, no we are not better off.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
I'm yelling at us about not meeting our obligations to the homeless. Of course you knew that already and went down your road anyway, because perish the thought that someone else gets to set the terms of the debate around here.
Like Koz you seem to think you get to decide who plays and who doesn't and what they say and what they don't. When Mike Dwyer brought me round here I was convinced I had found decent place of caring if politically opposite people. All these years later he's gone and I'm left with a bunch of conservatives who think parading as libertarians would have made them cooler in middle school.
meanwhile our nation is literally burning, and it's more important to you to try and derail everything anyone says then admit they might be right.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
And when those concessions lead to both citizen deportations without redress and a hobbled federal executive forever bogged down by lawsuits what then?
Much as I detest Jaybird's Divorce or War quip, I'm beginning to believe We would all be better off without Texas.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
You really don't like nuance do you?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
You are right - I wouldn't have Congress give away their authority in this manor. It won't actually solve anything.
Which I thought was the point. But I guess its better that Jaybird get to iterate his game.
"
Just because they aren't doing it Jaybird's way doesn't mean they are screwing it up.
That aside, the Bill of Right is about individual citizens, not a subordinate level of government.
Again - the way for Texas to address the issue as a state is to have its congressional delegation appropriate and authorize while conducting oversight through public hearings. Its quite telling that Congress wants to hand off more of its responsibilities to others.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
I didn't say that. I said we start to cause problem when we criminalize certain types of things. Economic homelessness is not usually in the control of the homeless person - if it were they would have avoided it. But making their actions of seeking stable shelter in public spaces criminal (which is what camp clearing does) worsens their situation, and breaks the societal bonds they need most as their economic situation deteriorates.
Simply paying taxes and wanting to be left alone is nice, but it doesn't prevent criminalization of things like economic homelessness, nor does it help society remain cohesive. It fact, I'd argue its a driver of declining social trust.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
This is not a redress of grievances issue - its a sovereign immunity issue. The Constitution grants the federal government sole control over borders, immigration and war making. Congress then appropriates to the executive such monies as Congress (not the Executive) deems warranted to perform those duties. The Executive then implements those responsibilities within those constraints.
Texas not liking that there is not more border enforcement is nice, but the way to impact that is to have Texas Congressional representation assure proper funding and oversight. Diverting federal public funds to answer Texas in court every time a decision has to be made won't actually change how DHS does its job unless Congress appropriates funds differently.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
Criminals by their nature are ditching their obligations to society. Problems arise, however, when things beyond a person's control (like lack of employment opportunity or economic homelessness) are criminalized.
A different problem exists for teachers and other civil servants who are stretched too thin and woefully underresoruced against their required actions. They are bending over backwards to meet societal obligations but stymied by forces beyond their control.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
As usual, dismally so, the Democrats have learned all the wrong lessons from their very small Senate and House defeats this election cycle. Thus they are still trying to be Republican light on important things like immigration. The worst part of this is that granting states standing to sue over federal performance in immigration enforcement is yet another blow to federalism.
Read more here -
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/12/politics/laken-riley-immigration-enforcement-lawsuits/index.html
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
We are already seeing this play out with Democratic support of the horrible immigration bill that is moving from the House to the Senate.
"
So you have no obligations outside yourself in a society and society has no obligations to you?
That's morbidly fascinating, and pitiable all at the same time.
"
The January 6th Attack was neither vague nor a difference of opinion. Trump's desire to reward those doing violence on his behalf doesn't mean we should all move on, and his abuse of the pardon power in this manor - if it happens - will still be wrong no matter who or how much protest erupts after it.
On “Multiple Wildfires Rip Through Los Angeles Amid Historic Winds”
ATF is likely the only agency big enough - and with enough experts - to examine multiple origin sites simultaneously. And just because there is a routine post-fire investigation doesn't mean arson will be found. They are covering all the bases, which is a welcome thing - or so I'd think.
"
So the Health Department shouldn't respond to reports of health code violations?
Got it.
I mean you will notice he wasn't fined or stopped.
On “A Society of Shame Attached to Everything”
On this you and I agree. And on the very rare occasion a "science journalist" is any good, they are usually fired first when a round of layoffs comes down.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
Hardly. I have no intention of letting the country I serve and love destroy itself because of vibes.
Nice try though.
"
You must be new around here ...
On “Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge in NY Criminal Case”
This conviction is gonna remain a thorn in his side. A burr in his saddle. A boil which festers.
That's probably the best punishment.
On “Multiple Wildfires Rip Through Los Angeles Amid Historic Winds”
So you'd rather the health department not follow the law?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
Is it possible that once, just once, you could let something be? I mean seriously - What was the point of calling this out and calling them Republican trolls? Or lambasting the song? What good does any of that do? What the iterated game you think this illustrates?
Or did you just decide between your All bran and your coffee to majorly troll today?
On “Multiple Wildfires Rip Through Los Angeles Amid Historic Winds”
Who has said this is about Trump in any way?
"
What I mean is that instead of subscribing to the current fashion of growing ever larger profits quarter over quarter, they return to delivering steady and consistent profits. Which then means the same amount of premiums, even from customers in higher danger zones, allows them to cover those losses.
The alternative is driving a collapse in the housing industry (at a time when we already have increasing economic homelessness) because banks require insurance to secure mortgages. Insurance knew this was coming and could have priced accordingly. They still could. They are presently refusing to do so.
"
They could do just that but it would result in a slight drop in year over year profits, which is what they see as their fiduciary responsibility. No just returning a profit, but returning maximum profit every quarter and thus every year. Because eventually if they follow the road they are on they won't exist as an industry.