521–530 of 604 posts
[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46670275 and marked it off topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This frames escalation as if it’s an inevitable byproduct of “not cooperating,” but that’s a choice. Sanctuary policies generally limit voluntary local participation (e.g., detainers without judicial warrants), they don’t “block” federal enforcement. “If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tact…
If you make any level noncooperation law against federal law enforcement, you are effectively creating the requirement that for the feds to enforce the law the federal government has to change their tactics. That’s not punishment, it’s just the effect of the decision you made.
> That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage.
It’s not normal enforcement, but neither is noncooperation. Sanctuary cities are not the norm. It’s a form of political leverage too.
> And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
Right…and you could also say the same thing about sanctuary policies too. So what if a city or area decided that they were going to be a sanctuary for people who violate the civil rights act? Would the federal government be justified in using different tactics in its enforcement of that law?
There are threads here you don’t want to accidentally pull because they will unravel whole sections of cloth that you want to keep intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Police in China would at least identify themselves, and never wear a mask.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s also lose-lose for the US. Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia. See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.
Not the case if the US joins the autocracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USA decimated its own native populations, so how is it better than Denmark?
You illustrate my point exactly - we are all awful colonialists. No one has a moral claim on Greenland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has some grace here as most of the negative feelings towards it dies with it's government. You're going to pick better next time, right?
Except that everyone can see that the US is capable of putting this kind of government into power, and could do so again and again.
If the dems win in 2026 and 2028, what is there to stop a return to fascism and further collapse in 2032?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes, but they were morons [for trying Jan 6] Do you agree that Trump instigated and directed the insurrection attempt as evidenced by him sending people to the Capitol, and making threatening phone calls to Senators while the mob advanced through the Capitol and the Senators and others begged him to tell the mob to go home?
I don’t wholly agree with that statement. He repeatedly asked for people to remain peaceful in the run up to J6. Even in his infamous 70 minute speech on the day of (which by the way was still going when most of the protestors were already at the capitol) where he called on people to “fight like hell” he called for peaceful demonstration. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building t…
So you partially agree that Trump is an insurrectionist?
>He repeatedly asked for people to remain peaceful in the run up to J6.
>Even in his infamous 70 minute speech on the day of ... he called for peaceful demonstration.
One "I'm sure you will be peaceful" at the beginning of a 70 minute speech is not an instruction to be peaceful, it's verbal window dressing for a speech where he told the crowd the election had been stolen and if they did not fight like hell they wouldn't have a country any more. He then directed them specifically to election proceedings he was already working to end either via the false slates of electors or having Pence unilaterally call the election fraudulent. He and his lawyers had created and submitted utterly false vote results from the states, and he repeatedly, publicly and privately, pressured Mike Pence to (illegally) reject the count itself as fraudulent.
>He did not call any senators. He called McCarthy
You missed out the part where McCarthy told him they were his supporters and the President ominously replied, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”
The most damning part of the timeline that indicates Trump's use of the violence to get his way is how long it took him to say anything to the protesters. Well over an hour since the capital was broken into Trump tweets: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" This tweet was made after aides had been "unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes" to get him to release a calming tweet.
Two more generic calls for peace via Twitter as he watches violence on TV for hours and is begged by multiple parties to intervene. Finally he's talked into a video call because the delay has been achieved and no more pressure can be applied to the Senators after Ashley Babbitt was shot, and the crowd begins winding down.
Then another round of calls to allied Senators to pressure them to vote against certifying the vote.
And all this is before you get to testimony that asserts that Trump's team was aware of the participation of the literal insurrectionist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, that Trump was informed many, many times by his people there was no stolen election and no evidence, and that multiple Trump staff sought and received pardons for their actions.
So what part of this whole situation reads like someone trying to stop a riot, rather than someone using it a situation they created as leverage over America's most sacred political process? If you think there’s an innocent explanation, what is it? Why all the delays, and pressure, and false electors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are people expecting to SCOTUS rebuff Trump? So far it seems that they're good to go on any Trumpian designs.
Yes, people expect SCOTUS to rebuff Trump on the tariffs. [0] Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the La…
Just want to comment what an incredibly piss poor argument that is, because if you take it to its conclusion, it means all of the power rests with the Executive and none with the Legislature. That is, by definition, the Executive branch has all the people that actually "do stuff". If the executive has full, 100% control over the structure and rules of the branch, why bother even having a legislature in the first place if all the laws can be conveniently ignored or "reinterpreted".
You could argue Congress still has the power of impeach if they believe laws aren't being faithfully excited, but I'd argue that is much too much of a blunt instrument to say that laws should be able to constrain what a President can do within the executive branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has some grace here as most of the negative feelings towards it dies with it's government. You're going to pick better next time, right?
Picking better next time won't be enough unless a lot of work is done to put in place safeguards to make it impossible for a future government to act the same way.
The reason Trump is able to get away with so much right now is because Congress is letting him. They could easily constrain his tariff powers, or his warmongering powers (they actually were close to doing that WRT Venezuela before some Republican Senators caved like a bunch of wet blankets), but they don't, because this is what people voted for. Trump is so much more powerful in his second term because at this point everyone knew he was a convicted felon, they knew he fomented the attack on the Capitol, and still a majority of voters voted for him.
Safeguards only work of someone is willing to enforce them.