Trump MAGAThread V: March Comes In Like A Lion

[New haven america]

So, my American friends, how fares your very first kleptocratic kakistocracy?


*whisper whisper*


Huh?


*whisper whisper*


What? Seriously?


*whisperwhisper*


...oh, crap.

Be careful, you might offend the Trump Loyalists.

[Galloism]

Spicer briefly suggests that tax plan eliminates deduction for 401k plans. White House then immediately walks back - proves how hard tax reform is.

[Ism]

Spicer briefly suggests that tax plan eliminates deduction for 401k plans. White House then immediately walks back - proves how hard tax reform is.

To be fair, no one knew how complicated this issue was. Totally came out of the blue.

[Galloism]

Spicer briefly suggests that tax plan eliminates deduction for 401k plans. White House then immediately walks back - proves how hard tax reform is.

To be fair, no one knew how complicated this issue was. Totally came out of the blue.

Well played sir. Well played.

[Ifreann]

Have we even, you know, talked with South Korea about this whole thing before poking their dangerous neighbor?

the invasion liberation is next Tuesday.

So long Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb

---

Spicer briefly suggests that tax plan eliminates deduction for 401k plans. White House then immediately walks back - proves how hard tax reform is.

To be fair, no one knew how complicated this issue was. Totally came out of the blue.

It all seemed so simple when it was just on one page, but now people are, like, talking about it and it's all getting out of control.

[Neutraligon]

So there are a group of teens and younger who are suing the the federal gov (first obama and now trump) about climate change. Anyone looked over this suit?

[Ifreann]

So there are a group of teens and younger who are suing the the federal gov (first obama and now trump) about climate change. Anyone looked over this suit?

I think there's been a thread on it.

[Corrian]

So there are a group of teens and younger who are suing the the federal gov (first obama and now trump) about climate change. Anyone looked over this suit?

I remember seeing that they were deemed allowed to, but that was as far as I saw.

[Neutraligon]

So there are a group of teens and younger who are suing the the federal gov (first obama and now trump) about climate change. Anyone looked over this suit?

I think there's been a thread on it.

Huh, if there was I either forgot about the thread or missed it.

[Gauthier]

So, my American friends, how fares your very first kleptocratic kakistocracy?


*whisper whisper*


Huh?


*whisper whisper*


What? Seriously?


*whisperwhisper*


...oh, crap.

Be careful, you might offend the Trump Loyalists.

Nobody expects the Trumpquisition.

[Izandai]

So, my American friends, how fares your very first kleptocratic kakistocracy?


*whisper whisper*


Huh?


*whisper whisper*


What? Seriously?


*whisperwhisper*


...oh, crap.

Wikipedia has an article on Trump's reaction to the courts blocking his travel ban.

That's the best version of that joke I've ever seen. Well played, good sir/madam. You win an internet.

[Corrian]

Wouldn't it be funny if kids and teenagers are what takes Trump down with lawsuits?

[Izandai]

Is there a problem with turning in people who have violated the law?

Well, yes.

Just like I explained to someone the other day, I wouldn't turn in my family if they had broken the law. Because, well, that's fucked. So I wouldn't turn in someone who happens to be an illegal immigrant just because they're an illegal immigrant if I happen to know them.

Loyalty is more important than the law. If you disagree with me, that's fine, I don't expect you to agree, but I wouldn't want a friend or acquaintance like you around me if you'd be willing to fuck me over like that.

"Snitches get stitches" wasn't born in a vacuum. It's usually part of a more tight-knit culture in prisons, where they all have to learn to deal with one another and a bond of loyalty and trust is to be established among all. Honestly, I'd trust an ex-convict to be loyal to me than a law-abiding citizen. I've found, from experience, that "law-abiding" and "upclass" people are more fucked up than "criminals" or "lowlifes", when it comes to loyalty.

I'd say that not turning someone in for breaking the law just because you personally know them is significantly more fucked. It's exactly this bullshit focus on "loyalty" (which is just another form of the toxic tribalism that has been plaguing humans for as long as there have been humans) that causes... Well, exactly what you're advocating. Close-knit communities not allowing the full force of the law to come crashing down on criminals within their midsts for no other reason than because they're within their midsts. It's horrifying, and I can't understand why people are okay with it.

[Gauthier]

Well, yes.

Just like I explained to someone the other day, I wouldn't turn in my family if they had broken the law. Because, well, that's fucked. So I wouldn't turn in someone who happens to be an illegal immigrant just because they're an illegal immigrant if I happen to know them.

Loyalty is more important than the law. If you disagree with me, that's fine, I don't expect you to agree, but I wouldn't want a friend or acquaintance like you around me if you'd be willing to fuck me over like that.

"Snitches get stitches" wasn't born in a vacuum. It's usually part of a more tight-knit culture in prisons, where they all have to learn to deal with one another and a bond of loyalty and trust is to be established among all. Honestly, I'd trust an ex-convict to be loyal to me than a law-abiding citizen. I've found, from experience, that "law-abiding" and "upclass" people are more fucked up than "criminals" or "lowlifes", when it comes to loyalty.

I'd say that not turning someone in for breaking the law just because you personally know them is significantly more fucked. It's exactly this bullshit focus on "loyalty" (which is just another form of the toxic tribalism that has been plaguing humans for as long as there have been humans) that causes... Well, exactly what you're advocating. Close-knit communities not allowing the full force of the law to come crashing down on criminals within their midsts for no other reason than because they're within their midsts. It's horrifying, and I can't understand why people are okay with it.

There's shielding murderers, rapists, drug dealers and whatnot and then there's turning in someone who's a productive member of the community whose sole crime is overstaying a visa or being undocumented.

[Valgora]

Wouldn't it be funny if kids and teenagers are what takes Trump down with lawsuits?

That would be great.

[Neutraligon]

Wouldn't it be funny if kids and teenagers are what takes Trump down with lawsuits?

That would be great.

Doubly so if it happens to be on the climate change.

[Gauthier]

Wouldn't it be funny if kids and teenagers are what takes Trump down with lawsuits?

That would be great.

Mexican Muslim Girls for the most ironic force.

[New haven america]

Wouldn't it be funny if kids and teenagers are what takes Trump down with lawsuits?

That would be great.

The Youth v. Trump.

I like it.

[Galloism]

Wouldn't it be funny if kids and teenagers are what takes Trump down with lawsuits?

Unlikely, but noted point:

It would literally make him a Scooby Doo villain.

[Neutraligon]

That would be great.

Mexican Muslim Girls for the most ironic force.

No Mexican Muslim young men (Trump likely has no problem with the Muslim women) as well as African American trans women where the lawsuit is about climate change and that lawsuit forces him to stop travelling to Mar-a-lago so he can't golf.

[Izandai]

I'd say that not turning someone in for breaking the law just because you personally know them is significantly more fucked. It's exactly this bullshit focus on "loyalty" (which is just another form of the toxic tribalism that has been plaguing humans for as long as there have been humans) that causes... Well, exactly what you're advocating. Close-knit communities not allowing the full force of the law to come crashing down on criminals within their midsts for no other reason than because they're within their midsts. It's horrifying, and I can't understand why people are okay with it.

There's shielding murderers, rapists, drug dealers and whatnot and then there's turning in someone who's a productive member of the community whose sole crime is overstaying a visa or being undocumented.

Well, of course. I wouldn't turn in an illegal immigrant just for being an illegal immigrant. But unless I misunderstood the post, Soldati was saying that they categorically would not turn in any of their family members who had committed a crime, regardless of what the crime was. If that's not what they meant, they did not provide the necessary qualifiers to clarify their position.

[Calladan]

I love you.

There is already a documentary on it too.

I thought this one was better

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well, yes.

Just like I explained to someone the other day, I wouldn't turn in my family if they had broken the law. Because, well, that's fucked. So I wouldn't turn in someone who happens to be an illegal immigrant just because they're an illegal immigrant if I happen to know them.

Loyalty is more important than the law. If you disagree with me, that's fine, I don't expect you to agree, but I wouldn't want a friend or acquaintance like you around me if you'd be willing to fuck me over like that.

"Snitches get stitches" wasn't born in a vacuum. It's usually part of a more tight-knit culture in prisons, where they all have to learn to deal with one another and a bond of loyalty and trust is to be established among all. Honestly, I'd trust an ex-convict to be loyal to me than a law-abiding citizen. I've found, from experience, that "law-abiding" and "upclass" people are more fucked up than "criminals" or "lowlifes", when it comes to loyalty.

I'd say that not turning someone in for breaking the law just because you personally know them is significantly more fucked. It's exactly this bullshit focus on "loyalty" (which is just another form of the toxic tribalism that has been plaguing humans for as long as there have been humans) that causes... Well, exactly what you're advocating. Close-knit communities not allowing the full force of the law to come crashing down on criminals within their midsts for no other reason than because they're within their midsts. It's horrifying, and I can't understand why people are okay with it.

It's not overly complicated, a number of us simply value loyalty more than we respect the law. I don't see why I should turn my back on someone who trusts me just because they broke a law. It's not like I'm entirely clean in that regard and nobody I trust has stabbed me in the back.

[AiliailiA]

So, my American friends, how fares your very first kleptocratic kakistocracy?


*whisper whisper*


Huh?


*whisper whisper*


What? Seriously?


*whisperwhisper*


...oh, crap.

To be fair, the ninth circuit is probably too big, encompassing the entire West Coast, what they border, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, the Mariana Islands, and Guam. That's eleven entities; 15 if you count the sub-divisions. No other circuit is that big; the 8th goes up to 10 entities including sub-divisions, and only 7 if you only count the states proper. Four circuits are a meager three states in size, for crying out loud.

His reason for doing so is most certainly not "it's too dang big", but that's a good reason to support a division.

"Entities" are for instance Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern districts of California. Four "entities" one state. Then also the Northern Marianas ... tiny ... that has to be put in some district and it could only be the most Western one.

What I'm saying is that counting "entities" or even counting states isn't the way to find if an appeals court circuit is too big. One of the circuits you called "meager" for having only three states is the 11th which includes Florida and another is the 5th which includes Texas.

In population both of those circuits are quite big:

Appeals court circuit	Pop. millions (2010 census)
D.C. Circuit	0.6
1st Circuit	14.0
2nd Circuit	23.6
3rd Circuit	22.5
4th Circuit	29.8
5th Circuit	32.6
6th Circuit	32.1
7th Circuit	25.0
8th Circuit	20.6
9th Circuit	61.7
10th Circuit	17.0
11th Circuit	33.3

Wikipedia

But. The 9th Circuit is much bigger than any of the others.

And what would we do about it? California alone has 37.3 million residents (by 2010 census) and taking that out of the 9th to form a new 12th District would leave the 9th with 24.4 million. It looks ugly on the map, and the 12th would still be larger in population than any other district, but it's the only way to do it. Any other partition breaks across state lines (a no-no) or is even more out of balance. Because any other division is California plus some other entity, versus the remainder which is even less than 24 million.

Well I wonder what would happen when the proposal is put like that? California gets its very own "circuit" ... won't the other states all want one too?

[Izandai]

I'd say that not turning someone in for breaking the law just because you personally know them is significantly more fucked. It's exactly this bullshit focus on "loyalty" (which is just another form of the toxic tribalism that has been plaguing humans for as long as there have been humans) that causes... Well, exactly what you're advocating. Close-knit communities not allowing the full force of the law to come crashing down on criminals within their midsts for no other reason than because they're within their midsts. It's horrifying, and I can't understand why people are okay with it.

It's not overly complicated, a number of us simply value loyalty more than we respect the law. I don't see why I should turn my back on someone who trusts me just because they broke a law. It's not like I'm entirely clean in that regard and nobody I trust has stabbed me in the back.

And I find the idea of valuing familial connections (here also referring to relationships with genetic strangers) over the rule of law horrifying. Civilization is built on the rule of law. The peace and order that is so crucial to economic and societal growth is predicated on the existence and enforcement of laws. Without laws protecting personal property, it's impossible to have any amount of secure savings beyond what you can personally secure with you own might. Without laws protecting one's person, the same holds true for one's physical well-being. If you can't trust that a random stranger isn't going to show up one day and take all you own or beat you half to death just because they want to and can, you have to spend all your time either surviving or protecting you and what you care about from attack, and under those circumstances it's impossible to have any sort of progress. There's a reason that states of anarchy never last long and always produce some form of government, even if it's just a warlord acting as a modern day feudal lord. People crave order and structure. Tyrannical rule is better than no rule at all. You may be at risk of attack by the government, but at least whatever laws exist mean you aren't at risk of attack by everyone (feudalistic systems arise out of anarchy for other reasons, but this is part of why they are allowed to do so and why they are not immediately and constantly rebelled against). Valuing familial connections over the rule of law undermines the foundational framework of civilisation. It erodes confidence in the structure of society and invites further disregard for the law by those who think they can get away with it or have gotten away with it due to the protective insulation from the law by their peers. Turning a blind eye to the criminal actions of one's family or friends means saying that they have the right to go unpunished for their crimes simply because you happen to know them personally. You're saying that other people's right not to be unjustly harmed by the actions of others stops when it infringes on your family and friend's rights to do whatever they want. This is tribalism in its purest form; downgrading the personhood of others and their rights as humans when not doing so would get in the way of letting you and your tribe do whatever it wants. It's disgusting, horrifying, vile, repulsive, primitive, and repugnant and it needs to stop.