World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[BogusMeatFactory]

Our nation is secure.

[CRTGAMER]

He did promise to run the country like a business. And in a business the CEO gets to make proclamations and then expect everyone else to jump and implement it. A smart CEO doesn't abuse that because they'd get voted out by the board.

Good play of words. We are seeing now what I had hoped Ross Perot might have done decades ago. Do what you have to do to make the company survive and prosper. Will the decisions and proclamations be the right choice affecting all employees in the company and outsiders not joined in? The voters will have the say in four years if there should be a continual merger. Two years for some of the lower executives in Congress.

[Sarge]

Our nation is secure.

There are estimated to be roughly 12 million illegal immigrants here. You may not be concerned about them, but that most certainly does not denote "secure".

[marurun]

The latest is the 9th district Appeal Courts will not rescind the Stay. I fall back on the rule that Judges do not make laws, but should uphold the law!

The courts aren't "making laws" with this stay. They are performing their expected duty. Federal courts do not always agree in their interpretation of the law because the law is often written vaguely. Right now, the only circuit to weigh in on the issue thus far is the ninth. you'll also recall that the congress makes laws, and at this time Trump has literally zero reason to circumvent congress.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Our nation is secure.

There are estimated to be roughly 12 million illegal immigrants here. You may not be concerned about them, but that most certainly does not denote "secure".

You can't stop them all no matter how hard you try. When you criminalize all of them only makes the nation less secure. They are not all criminals and many are productive members of society. Want a better gdp? Be productive.

[jp1]

He did promise to run the country like a business. And in a business the CEO gets to make proclamations and then expect everyone else to jump and implement it. A smart CEO doesn't abuse that because they'd get voted out by the board.

Good play of words. We are seeing now what I had hoped Ross Perot might have done decades ago. Do what you have to do to make the company survive and prosper. Will the decisions and proclamations be the right choice affecting all employees in the company and outsiders not joined in? The voters will have the say in four years if there should be a continual merger. Two years for some of the lower executives in Congress.

This is not how our country is supposed to be run. There is no "Spin", this shit is unconstitutional.

Our nation is secure.

There are estimated to be roughly 12 million illegal immigrants here. You may not be concerned about them, but that most certainly does not denote "secure".

Why are you concerned about them? What differentiates them from you or I besides their place of birth?

[Sarge]

Our nation is secure.

There are estimated to be roughly 12 million illegal immigrants here. You may not be concerned about them, but that most certainly does not denote "secure".

You can't stop them all no matter how hard you try. When you criminalize all of them only makes the nation less secure. They are not all criminals and many are productive members of society. Want a better gdp? Be productive.

I didn't say you could. That doesn't mean that one doesn't try. You can't stop every crime from being committed, either, but that isn't a valid reason to just throw up our hands and give up.

Why are you concerned about them?

I'm not concerned about the good ones (which should go without saying). My concern is there is currently no way to tell those who wish us harm from those that simply want a better life. We've been talking in the case of immigration and the refugee process about how stringent the vetting process is, which is great. But when you've got borders that leak like a sieve, there's no vetting at all!

What differentiates them from you or I besides their place of birth?

This statement I find highly problematic, because their place of birth does differentiate them. This is why we have countries in the first place! What point is it to have a country if you cannot control your borders and make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? We might as well take in everyone regardless of their contribution to this country if we cannot make a distinction based on where a person is from.

To be absolutely clear on my position on immigration: If you want to come here and make a better life for yourself, come in the front door. I will welcome you with open arms.

[CRTGAMER]

With the Seattle Judge ruling and 9th district staying out, the Supreme court nomination now even more critical for both Democrats and Republicans. The Seattle judge put an absolution that Neil Gorsuch is in, the question is was his ruling worth it? A short term Democratic liberal victory vs a long term Republican victory of a conservative judge placed for many years to come.

A back in time to last year on an earlier Supreme court nomination and a gamble that helped the Republicans:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... servatism/

How Scalia’s death may have killed Supreme Court conservatism
Justice Antonin Scalia’s death not only created an opening on the Supreme Court, but also ignited what will be one of the most intense political battles of the modern era. A liberal president with the constitutional obligation to nominate justices to the high court, a conservative Republican Senate with the constitutional obligation to advise and consent to nominations, and a competitive presidential election less than nine months away, all make the stakes in selecting Scalia’s successor quite high.

The president and the Senate have drawn lines in the sand. Obama is clearly committed to submitting a nomination. Senate Republicans—leadership, presidential candidates, and rank and file—are openly refusing the president without even an idea of who his pick will be. With Scalia’s seat empty, the Court can no longer muster five conservative votes. Kennedy can join Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to issue liberal rulings by a vote of 5-3, and with Scalia’s absence, the best conservatives can even hope for is a 4-4 tie. That 4-4 tie, at best, leaves in place a lower court ruling (which can be conservative), but does not have the authority of a Supreme Court opinion. If Scalia’s vacancy endures for some time, it can also motivate litigants to begin forum shopping—finding a US Court of Appeals circuit that will issue a “friendly” ruling, knowing that the Supreme Court will not have the votes to toss it out.

The US Constitution requires that Supreme Court justices be nominated by the president (even one in his last year in office) and confirmed by the Senate. They are not elected. However, in an interesting turn of events, the 2016 presidential election may be as much about selecting the new commander-in-chief as it is about “electing” a new justice to the US Supreme Court. If Obama is barred by the Senate from making a third pick for the high court, the 2016 election will mean one of two things for the Supreme Court and for American common law. If a Republican is elected in November, the Court will look a lot like it did before Scalia’s death. If a Democrat succeeds Obama, the Court’s conservatism will be buried with its first Italian-American justice.

The Republicans are patient poker players waiting to the end for Senator Schumer to play out his last card. A gamble of the up front rebellion that could mean less Democratic seats in the red states in two years. Schumer knows a fail either way and yet still supports the 60 vote option. A pressure for all Democratic Senators to vote against; so why would he risk losing even more seats in two years? This is what happens when emotions over sensibility controls the decision.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... tory.html#

Democrats are ready to fight Trump's Supreme Court pick as the GOP-led Senate weighs 'nuclear option' on filibuster
While Democrats sound alarms over Trump’s high court nomination and threaten to block it, their ability to actually stop him will be limited, thanks in part to their past willingness to change the filibuster rule when they held power. Democrats are in no mood to cooperate with Trump. Many remain incensed that Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s choice of Judge Merrick Garland after Scalia’s death, leaving the court with only eight justices for nearly a year. “This was a stolen seat; it’s not Trump’s to fill,” said one Senate Democratic aide granted anonymity to discuss the situation. On Monday, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon promised a filibuster fight over the nominee. “Just voting against Trump’s policies and nominees is not enough,” wrote Anna Galland and Ilya Sheyman, executive directors of MoveOn.org, in a post on Medium. “Senate Democrats must use every procedural tool available to them to shut down the Senate.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as an institutionalist, was loath to see Democrats abandon the precedent in 2013 on judicial nominees and executive appointments. But as a keen political operative, he is also unwilling to clip his own options. Pressed on the issue on Fox News recently, McConnell would say only, “The nominee will be confirmed.”

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is among those floating another option with the Heritage Foundation — the so-called two-speech rule — that would essentially run out the clock on the filibuster by limiting how many speeches each senator could deliver. Once all time is exhausted in a weeks-long process, the nominee could be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

In addition, the two speech clock will further expose senators on how they will vote in advance, notably the red state repercussion. Smart of the Republicans to hold the Nuclear Option until the very end. Would be great if the bomb fuse set to after the filibuster tally exposing which Democrats would brave the red state storm in two years. Not only the red states, there is a much larger pool of Democratic vs Republicans that are up for reelection in 2018!

This is better then placing bets on off track horse races.

[jp1]

I didn't say you could. That doesn't mean that one doesn't try. You can't stop every crime from being committed, either, but that isn't a valid reason to just throw up our hands and give up.

Why are you concerned about them?

I'm not concerned about the good ones (which should go without saying). My concern is there is currently no way to tell those who wish us harm from those that simply want a better life. We've been talking in the case of immigration and the refugee process about how stringent the vetting process is, which is great. But when you've got borders that leak like a sieve, there's no vetting at all!

What differentiates them from you or I besides their place of birth?

This statement I find highly problematic, because their place of birth does differentiate them. This is why we have countries in the first place! What point is it to have a country if you cannot control your borders and make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? We might as well take in everyone regardless of their contribution to this country if we cannot make a distinction based on where a person is from.

To be absolutely clear on my position on immigration: If you want to come here and make a better life for yourself, come in the front door. I will welcome you with open arms.

Fair enough, but that front door is getting ever so slim. It's problematic because it goes against the principles that our great nation is founded on, and those that have created the melting pot we all love and adore.

There is too much reactionary fear associated with "Terrorist attacks" when compared with all the horrible crimes committed by American citizens they are a very small percentage. You could just as easily be targeted because someone decided to start bombing in the name of Jesus Christ. Something tells me you wouldn't take kindly to that kind of attitude.

We are being sold a bill of goods on hate, and too many Americans are buying it up without question. As for the already in place immigrants that you think should be deported (hazarding a guess based on your assertions), they don't seem to be hurting too many people, at least not more than your average citizen. They also do make contributions, their cheap labor provides lower cost goods and housing to you and many other Americans. I'm sure they would be happy to make a fair wage and pay taxes instead, but corporations don't want that since it will cost them, and you, more money.

I don't really understand the "Why have countries in the first place?" argument.

http://www.shmoop.com/1920s/immigration.html

In both eras, we see powerful movements to restrict immigration amid fears that the arrival of too many newcomers to this nation will undermine American society and culture.

History never simply repeats itself, of course, and there are many important differences between the 1920s and our own time as well. Still, the similarities are striking.

It is impossible for us now to look back on the 1920s without being influenced by our knowledge of how the Roaring Twenties came to an end—with a Great Crash and Great Depression. The incredible affluence was only a mirage, the decadent culture only an ironic prelude to a decade of hard times ahead.

Not the best source in the world, but it is an academic website, and the information is still true.

[Sarge]

With refugees, the numbers were being returned to the levels before Pres. Obama came into office.

As far as green card holders, it doesn't look like there's been a clampdown from this data, there's been a steady increase since the '40s:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs ... -Residents

As regarding the "why have countries at all", it could be that I read your statement incorrectly. It sounded to me that you were drawing no distinction at all between citizens and non-citizens. Given that a country's primary mission is in protecting and aiding its own people, one has to draw a distinction between those that are citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of this country, and those that are not. This doesn't just extend to keeping the citizenry safe from criminal elements, but also whether it helps or hurts us economically as well.

We may not be able to vet our own citizens at birth, but we do have the opportunity to do so with those we decide to let into this country, so we should. That they commit crimes at a lesser rate (on average across the entire immigrant population; legal and illegal) than native-born isn't really the point. We don't need any more criminals as it is, so any number that flow through our borders should be deemed unacceptable.

If there was something else you were trying to communicate with that statement, let me know!