Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Not much, if the national guard are implementing a legal order from a judge than there's nothing that can be down to them legally. The agent that opened fire would just be a terrorist nutjob who attacked the national guard while trying to illegal detail people.
That only leaves Trump going full nutso and trying to order the national military to detain people at the airports, an order that would almost certainly be ignored on account of being illegal.
edited 28th Jan '17 11:34:26 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThere's enough confusion over the chain of command at the moment (these executive orders are getting thrown around with no plans as to their enforcement, leaving a lot up to interpretation) that I'd rather let the lawyers stay on the front line for now. (But I reserve the right to change my mind depending on how the next several hours go.)
If it comes to the police/marshals/guard, well...
edited 28th Jan '17 11:42:45 PM by Elle
What we need to do is find our own populism - we need to awaken the people to the abuses - the real abuses of the "nobility" - not the nontroversies that only serve as distractions. We need to focus on how its only class warfare when the "plebs" fight back, and how the new nobility sees fit to poison our air for their gain, ravage the land, and enforce a rigid class structure that exists to serve the 1%'s ends.
We need to field politicians who would say to Mark Zuckerberg "no, you cannot have that land", we need politicians who will encourage protest and disruption of the profit margin, we need politicians who are willing to actually use terms and ideas that show the upper class' indulgences and corruption. We need people who talk about wealth disparity, about how they force people out, and want to pay only the smallest sliver of their "earnings". How they use and abuse a tax code made for their benefit.
What we need are people willing to stand up even amidst charges of being "Anti-American", who can proudly say that Fox News despises them, that they do not want to be liked by the Trumpists. We need people with spines, with a real willpower and a capability to reject any effort to force things to the right.
The right has never had a legitimate point. Lets not pretend it ever did.
Its honor is a cloak for condescension, its words about appreciating the troops are utterly two-faced - support the troops when they're fighting and killing for chicken hawks, and then screw them out of any benefits possible once the fighting is done. Morality is just their excuse word for looking down on people different than them, who like or write things the Right deems immoral or "indecent".
We have to abandon this guileless cult of centrism and stop acting like both sides "have good points". We have to stop acting like calling Trump Supporters racist / bigoted is somehow a bad thing, when they're endorsing and enabling a tyrannical despot that gets worse with each passing day. We're barely a week into this, and somehow "Oh not all Trump Supporters are bad!" is still prevalent.
Well, I'm told that the US legal system is a lot better at making life miserable for those found to be in contempt of court, so there's that.
Customs officials at Dulles are being driven to tears by the combination of lack of response from command and the angry crowds forming
. These guys never asked for this either...
That feels like the White House is running scared if they won't give orders. Have the Customs Officals tried tweeting at Trump so as to get orders?
Honestly if there's are the same customs officals who were asking people their political views (as in if they supported Trump) then I have no sympathy for them, the mob can have them for all I care.
Still they will crack, when high command goes silent the grunts tend to give way to the mob, that's how the Berlin Wall fell.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFrom a few pages back:
From what I've experienced, the last two groups are basically one and the same.
It's what I've referred to multiple times as "south park conservatism" (or south park centrism), which is basically just edgelordry and acting like anyone who's really invested in social injustice has already "lost" by caring at all in the first place, because "the world sucks, get used to it f*ggot LMAO".
Not everyone with that attitude (which is a LOT of the internet) is a trump supporter or alt-right, but the alt-right is its logical endpoint.
I suppose in that regard, Bannon is an apt figurehead since he sounds and acts like a ridiculous parody of a 14 year old edgelord, calling himself a "leninist" and comparing himself with Darth Vader. Only it's really not funny because it's real and he's also a white supremacist.
From Lawfare: A counterterrorism hawk reviews the Executive Order responsible for the refugee ban
. In his opinion and those he quoted for this article, not only is it malevolent, but it is astonishingly incompetently written.
How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact." One of the reasons there’s so much chaos going on right now, in fact, is that nobody really knows what the order means on important points.
Some examples:
- Sec. 3(c) bans "entry"—which to the best of my knowledge has had no meaning in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) since the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. Pre-IIRIRA law did use the term “entry,” but that is no longer the case.
- Section 3(g) talks of waivers on a case-by-case basis for people who are otherwise denied visas or other benefits under the immigration laws pursuant to the order. If a person needs a waiver to obtain "other benefits," does that mean that nationals of the seven countries are denied any benefit under the INA without a waiver, benefits such as naturalization, adjustment of status, or temporary protected status, even if they are already in the US?
- On its face, the order bars entry of both immigrants and non-immigrants. Again, as entry is not defined, and no one was given any time to draft implementing guidance or to clarify any points, it’s no surprise that Customs and Border Protection doesn’t seem to know how to apply it to lawful permanent residents (LP Rs). The INA, at section 101(a)(13)(C), says that green card holders will not be deemed as seeking admission absent the factors enumerated therein—factors that do not include an executive order banning entry. Yet Reuters and The Guardian are both reporting quotations from a DHS public relations official, stating that the order does apply to LP Rs. If that interpretation lasts, look for DHS to get its ass handed to it on a platter in federal court—a defeat it will richly deserve.
- Another big mystery is how the order will apply to asylees. Will people even be allowed to apply? On the one hand, the right to seek asylum is right there in the INA. But to apply for asylum, you have to be interviewed by a U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services officer to determine if you have a credible fear of persecution. Is that interview a benefit under the act? And if so, is it barred? From what I hear, right now anyway, Customs and Border Protection is not allowing anyone to claim asylum and have a credible fear interview.
Probably because that's exactly how it was written.
In retrospect this is a thoroughly unsurprising outcome. Trump probably knows as much about the workings of US law as it's written, interpreted and applied to US refugees as he does about nuclear physics. AKA, fuckall.
We can only hope his capriciousness and lack of any qualifications or knowledge is going to consistently undermine all the horrible shit he's going to sign on for.
The bright side is, though, at least some of those poor people still stuck on Manus and Nauru are finally getting out of there.

And what happens if some deranged custom officers decide to open fire at one of them?
The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.