Trump MAGAThread V: March Comes In Like A Lion

[MERIZoC]

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.

Close enough as is, he already looks like he's wearing a mask.

[Valrifell]

Unlikely, but noted point:

It would literally make him a Scooby Doo villain.

Close enough as is, he already looks like he's wearing a mask.

...

Do you think anyone's tried to see if his face actually was a mask?

Hm...

[AiliailiA]

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.

I take it you'd support Mandatory Reporting for all crimes and for everyone, then?

I would, though not for all crimes: only serious crimes, of which unauthorized presence in the country is not one. In my opinion though, and there's the problem. What I consider a "serious" crime isn't the same as someone else, and likely neither of us have a definition of "serious" which aligns with the felony/misdemeanor distinction.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And I find the idea of valuing familial connections (here also referring to relationships with genetic strangers) over the rule of law horrifying.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I find your position pretty abhorrent myself.

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.

Civilization wouldn't collapse if we got rid of half of the stupid ass laws we have now.

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

I dunno if you've noticed but that does happen fairly regularly across the country. There's a reason people own weapons for self defense and lock their doors and all that jazz.

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.

Good thing I'm not an anarchist.

People crave order and structure.

Those aren't really things I crave.

Tyrannical rule is better than no rule at all.

Bullshit.

Valuing familial connections over the rule of law undermines the foundational framework of civilisation.

Civilization must be a pretty frail thing if me not reporting a friend for having some pot undermines it's very framework.

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.

Further disregard for stupid laws is really only a good thing, imo.

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.

Your first mistake is assuming that every time a law is broken someone must be harmed by it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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?

One of the better proposals I've seen for splitting the 9th circuit involved creating two new circuits, one in the southwest with California, Arizona, Nevada and maybe Hawaii. The second would be Alaska, WA, Oregon, Montana and Idaho.

That would look decent on the map

[Liriena]

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


*whisper whisper*


Huh?


*whisper whisper*


What? Seriously?


*whisperwhisper*


...oh, crap.

Okay, first off, that's over the top drama.

Second thing, fucking HuffPo.

Expressing concern over the fact that the president of a superpower is such an uneducated and vindictive idiot that he thinks he is entitled to absolute power is "over the top drama"?

Also, I couldn't care less about your personal dislike for the source. The article is factual.

Any further contributions?

[AiliailiA]

Close enough as is, he already looks like he's wearing a mask.

...

Do you think anyone's tried to see if his face actually was a mask?

Hm...

Yes. Last year Trump invited a random woman up on stage to pull at his hairpiece. This was supposed to prove his hair is real, though actually it might just show that he uses glue to hold it on. Anyway, yes.

[Liriena]

Tyrannical rule is better than no rule at all.

*laughs in anarchist*

[Luminesa]

...

Do you think anyone's tried to see if his face actually was a mask?

Hm...

Yes. Last year Trump invited a random woman up on stage to pull at his hairpiece. This was supposed to prove his hair is real, though actually it might just show that he uses glue to hold it on. Anyway, yes.

> Woman keeps pulling at Trump's hair.
> "IT. WON'T. COME. OFF."
> *Tears it off.*
> *It turns out to be an orange hamster glued to his head.*
> PETA gets involved.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

DN.se is reporting that NASA is running out of spacesuits. <.< >.>
Now the question is, Mar-a-Lago & WALL or NASA? <.< >.>
(Also soz, no anglo-saxon available. :3)

[Washington Resistance Army]

DN.se is reporting that NASA is running out of spacesuits. <.< >.>
Now the question is, Mar-a-Lago & WALL or NASA? <.< >.>
(Also soz, no anglo-saxon available. :3)

The real answer is SpaceX.

[AiliailiA]

Okay, first off, that's over the top drama.

Second thing, fucking HuffPo.

Expressing concern over the fact that the president of a superpower is such an uneducated and vindictive idiot that he thinks he is entitled to absolute power is "over the top drama"?

The way you did it I guess. Though I took it as a strained and unsuccessful attempt at humor (sorry) and I think qualifying a -cracy word with a -cratic word is bad grammar.

Also, I couldn't care less about your personal dislike for the source. The article is factual.

Yes, and Trump made three factual errors in one tweet: the decision didn't come from the 9th Circuit, there was no judge-shopping, and the 9th Circuit does not have 80% of its decisions overturned.

I've always despised Twitter but I must say, a better way for idiots to out themselves has yet to be invented.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I've always despised Twitter but I must say, a better way for idiots to out themselves has yet to be invented.

Youtube? Facebook? <.< >.>

[Valgora]

I've always despised Twitter but I must say, a better way for idiots to out themselves has yet to be invented.

Youtube? Facebook? <.< >.>

Arguably, Twitter is easier for idiots to use.

[Liriena]

Youtube? Facebook? <.< >.>

Arguably, Twitter is easier for idiots to use.

An Argie journalist often remarked that he thought of Twitter as the equivalent of people writing on the walls of a public toilet's stalls.

[Izandai]

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.

I take it you'd support Mandatory Reporting for all crimes and for everyone, then?

I would, though not for all crimes: only serious crimes, of which unauthorized presence in the country is not one. In my opinion though, and there's the problem. What I consider a "serious" crime isn't the same as someone else, and likely neither of us have a definition of "serious" which aligns with the felony/misdemeanor distinction.

Again, I wouldn't report someone for being an illegal immigrant. I don't think it should be illegal to live where you want to live. I'm not against disregarding the law when the law is bad or when there are extenuating circumstances that mean it's not worth caring about in a specific situation, I'm against disregarding the law when it's brought to bear on your friends or family just because it's your friends or family.

[AiliailiA]

I take it you'd support Mandatory Reporting for all crimes and for everyone, then?

I would, though not for all crimes: only serious crimes, of which unauthorized presence in the country is not one. In my opinion though, and there's the problem. What I consider a "serious" crime isn't the same as someone else, and likely neither of us have a definition of "serious" which aligns with the felony/misdemeanor distinction.

Again, I wouldn't report someone for being an illegal immigrant. I don't think it should be illegal to live where you want to live. I'm not against disregarding the law when the law is bad or when there are extenuating circumstances that mean it's not worth caring about in a specific situation, I'm against disregarding the law when it's brought to bear on your friends or family just because it's your friends or family.

I would favor my friend or family member. What do you even mean by "friend" if you don't have some positive discrimination towards them (or some loyalty)?

There are crimes so heinous I would turn in my own mother if she was the criminal. And at the other extreme, there are crimes I wouldn't turn in anyone for. There's a wide ground between though, and I think that's where my favoritism of my friends and family would likely tip the balance. I wouldn't go as far as Soldati apparently would, loyalty above all else, but I also wouldn't deal with my friends or family like they're strangers.

I also wouldn't go into impassioned rant mode while trying to explain how just and objective I am being ...

[AiliailiA]

Arguably, Twitter is easier for idiots to use.

An Argie journalist often remarked that he thought of Twitter as the equivalent of people writing on the walls of a public toilet's stalls.

Except the wisdom of the toilet stall is more anonymous (see, Internet Fuckwad Theory) and the toilet stall medium allows the use of sketches and diagrams to make the point. For instance "I am a teenage nazi who can't do a swastika right even on the fifth attempt" ...

[Neutraligon]

So who here is worried about the FCC and net neutrality?

[The Flutterlands]

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

Can Lawsuits impeach?

[Liriena]

So who here is worried about the FCC and net neutrality?

I mean, I don't know what ramifications it could have all the way in Argentina, but I'm definitely worried as hell.

[AiliailiA]

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?

One of the better proposals I've seen for splitting the 9th circuit involved creating two new circuits, one in the southwest with California, Arizona, Nevada and maybe Hawaii. The second would be Alaska, WA, Oregon, Montana and Idaho.

That would look decent on the map

It would, but by making a new circuit with small net population while leaving a circuit with a large net population it doesn't really improve the balance of all circuits.

Alaska, WA, Oregon, Montana and Idaho. 2010 census net population 13.9 million, less than the current smallest the 1st district. And (this is why you like it right?) almost half of that in WA alone. And the remainder (CA plus) would still be the biggest by a fair margin.

If all the rest of the country were entitled to such "small" circuits as you want for WA and OR etc, there would have to be 22 or 23 different circuits, and some would be only part of a state since there are 4 states with outright more population.

[The Flutterlands]

So who here is worried about the FCC and net neutrality?

Can we take it up in court?

[Camicon]

So who here is worried about the FCC and net neutrality?

I live in America, so immediately, not all that worried. I don't know what it would mean going forward, if net neutrality in the USA is effectively killed, so there's no point in worrying about it.

[The Flutterlands]

So who here is worried about the FCC and net neutrality?

I live in America, so immediately, not all that worried. I don't know what it would mean going forward, if net neutrality in the USA is effectively killed, so there's no point in worrying about it.

After all, Net Neutrality existed long before it became an offical law.