The direction of society lately

[72gmc]

It’s well past time for Chuck’s party to find a challenger for his seat. There will be no reciprocal good faith. He is seeing things through magic glasses that look back to a time when the opposition respected the institution.

[gregl]

It’s well past time for Chuck’s party to find a challenger for his seat. There will be no reciprocal good faith. He is seeing things through magic glasses that look back to a time when the opposition respected the institution.

I'm not a fan of, or apologist for, Chuck. I think he's well aware there's zero good faith from his colleagues across the aisle. My $0.02 is that he feels he can gain more while fighting within a "working" government than trying to fight within a government that is shut down (and possibly ripe for more illegalities from Trump and Musk). He's choosing how to fight the fight. Whether this amounts to Chamberlain in 1938 is for history to determine.

Greg

[72gmc]

The illegalities are going to happen no matter how he votes. That’s the advantage of being willing to break the law, and they are showing us how willing they are. A yes vote indicates he’s still seeing this as a rim brake vs disc brake scenario when it’s a bicycle vs out-of-control cybertruck scenario.

[j44ke]

The illegalities are going to happen no matter how he votes. That’s the advantage of being willing to break the law, and they are showing us how willing they are. A yes vote indicates he’s still seeing this as a rim brake vs disc brake scenario when it’s a bicycle vs out-of-control cybertruck scenario.

The discussion is more about whether or not this is a Reichstag moment. Schumer is among those who feel like the Democrats were being baited into shutting the government down, and that what is currently illegal then would be made legal in response.

Consider why Trump is pushing SCOTUS to fast track their decision on birthright citizenship. Many people still naively think that it is about immigration.

[bcm119]

I'm not a fan of, or apologist for, Chuck. I think he's well aware there's zero good faith from his colleagues across the aisle. My $0.02 is that he feels he can gain more while fighting within a "working" government than trying to fight within a government that is shut down (and possibly ripe for more illegalities from Trump and Musk). He's choosing how to fight the fight. Whether this amounts to Chamberlain in 1938 is for history to determine.

Greg

I reluctantly agree with Schumer's caving. As a federal employee, I may be biased. But there is an arcane rule (that afaik has never been exercised before, which means nothing now) allowing the executive branch to RIF any employees who've been in furlough status for more than 30 days. During a shutdown, that's about a third of government. That would be catastrophic, and likely a worse outcome than whatever they can do while government is open. It also explains why Musk is gunning for a shutdown, per multiple sources.

[suspectdevice]

I hate both parties, and i hate CR’s more. But yeah, we needed this one “ just in case”.

If Schumer uses this moment to step back and allow someone born after 1950 to take control of the caucus, it would be grrrreat, but it’s pretty clear that the democrats are afraid of all their memebers that were born after Regan got elected.

The fact that the most popular politician in america is ancient (still feeling the Bern over here), and is out trying, desperately, to move the needle to preserve The System is so dang cute, but the only way out of this problem we are all in is… a little bit too extreme for my favorite Senator.

[echappist]

The discussion is more about whether or not this is a Reichstag moment. Schumer is among those who feel like the Democrats were being baited into shutting the government down, and that what is currently illegal then would be made legal in response.

Consider why Trump is pushing SCOTUS to fast track their decision on birthright citizenship. Many people still naively think that it is about immigration.

Could you dig into this aspect a bit? Is it about disenfranchising (b/c no citizenship means no vote) or is it something even more sinister?

[echappist]

I reluctantly agree with Schumer's caving. As a federal employee, I may be biased. But there is an arcane rule (that afaik has never been exercised before, which means nothing now) allowing the executive branch to RIF any employees who've been in furlough status for more than 30 days. During a shutdown, that's about a third of government. That would be catastrophic, and likely a worse outcome than whatever they can do while government is open. It also explains why Musk is gunning for a shutdown, per multiple sources.

Thanks for bringing this up. I was completely unaware of it.

[72gmc]

I reluctantly agree with Schumer's caving. As a federal employee, I may be biased. But there is an arcane rule (that afaik has never been exercised before, which means nothing now) allowing the executive branch to RIF any employees who've been in furlough status for more than 30 days. During a shutdown, that's about a third of government. That would be catastrophic, and likely a worse outcome than whatever they can do while government is open. It also explains why Musk is gunning for a shutdown, per multiple sources.

Thank you for sharing this perspective (you too Jorn and GregL)

[j44ke]

Could you dig into this aspect a bit? Is it about disenfranchising (b/c no citizenship means no vote) or is it something even more sinister?

Potentially it is part of a stair step process for weakening citizenship as a whole and making it subject to the judgement of a government rather than something an individual's birth guarantees. It is a classic move. You begin with punitive measures directed at the liminal groups or special cases where public support is strong and then move from there to widen the scope of enforcement through an if-X-then-Y process until the public as a whole is subject to the government's definition. If the government - with the courts' blessings - controls the definition, then they can make anyone not-a-citizen. It doesn't matter who the person is or where they came from. Whatever the government says goes. So it isn't about immigration as much as it is power and control. Immigration is just a small part of the whole.

[rccardr]

This.

Also, consider that Schumer’s willingness to publicly announce his vote for the CR (and why) along with a mere handful of other Dems, allowed the rest of the senators in their party to (also publicly, see Warnock’s statement to Georgia voters as an example) vote against it. Something that may help them in their next election cycle.

It’s a long game. Devious sometimes requires deviation.

[echappist]

This.

Also, consider that Schumer’s willingness to publicly announce his vote for the CR (and why) along with a mere handful of other Dems, allowed the rest of the senators in their party to (also publicly, see Warnock’s statement to Georgia voters as an example) vote against it. Something that may help them in their next election cycle.

It’s a long game. Devious sometimes requires deviation.

I just hope that they are indeed thinking ahead.

It's only two-month in, and we've already seen a lot of tumult.

[vespasianus]

I reluctantly agree with Schumer's caving. As a federal employee, I may be biased. But there is an arcane rule (that afaik has never been exercised before, which means nothing now) allowing the executive branch to RIF any employees who've been in furlough status for more than 30 days. During a shutdown, that's about a third of government. That would be catastrophic, and likely a worse outcome than whatever they can do while government is open. It also explains why Musk is gunning for a shutdown, per multiple sources.

But I think something like that needs to happen. People have to face what they have done. There is going to have to be massive pain and a swelling of anger that results in long term and positive change.

[zachateseverything]

But I think something like that needs to happen. People have to face what they have done. There is going to have to be massive pain and a swelling of anger that results in long term and positive change.

That's the thing. The Dems have serious long term issues with messaging and unfavorability. There was some recent poling of swing Trump voters who are very unhappy with what Trump is doing, but if given choice today, still wouldn't pull the lever for Harris.

The last couple election cycles the basic message has been "vote for us, the GOP are a bunch of fascists that will take your rights away." It hasn't been particularly successful. If the Democrats let the electorate touch the stove, like they did with Covid and GOP attacks on reproductive rights, they'll see a short term gain. The issue is that the average swing voter has the memory of a goldfish and a ton of people can be convinced to vote against their economic issues just based on identity politics. All of those gains will be wiped out in the next election cycle if the Dems don't provide a tangible improvement and articulate that improvement even in the media silos that a lot of people place themselves.

The Dems need to stop playing defense and limiting losses. They need to articulate a clear vision for the future that resonates with even rural voters, and here's the kicker...they need to do the thing when they're given power and stand by the thing that they did.

[suspectdevice]

Next Election cycle?
That seems increasingly unlikely.

The administration made it even clearer over the weekend that they don’t believe they are governed by articles 1(congress has power of the purse), 2(respect predecessor’s pardon power or 3(obeying court rulings)of the Constitution.

If you aren’t armed yet, it’s probably time to sell a bike or two and get armed. Especially if there are vulnerable people in your life.

[beeatnik]

What differentiates the United States from the 30ish nations which grant birthright citizenship? Legally, not culturally or historically.

Potentially it is part of a stair step process for weakening citizenship as a whole and making it subject to the judgement of a government rather than something an individual's birth guarantees. It is a classic move. You begin with punitive measures directed at the liminal groups or special cases where public support is strong and then move from there to widen the scope of enforcement through an if-X-then-Y process until the public as a whole is subject to the government's definition. If the government - with the courts' blessings - controls the definition, then they can make anyone not-a-citizen. It doesn't matter who the person is or where they came from. Whatever the government says goes. So it isn't about immigration as much as it is power and control. Immigration is just a small part of the whole.

[beeatnik]

Found the answer, I think:

Why Does the United States Grant Citizenship to All Children Born in the Country?

Countries in North and South America generally think about birthright citizenship differently than those in the rest of the world. By and large, granting ancestry-based citizenship is nearly universal throughout the world. On the other hand, granting citizenship to all children born in a country’s territory became more common in the Americas. After the founding of the United States, other countries in the Western Hemisphere also adopted unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship. A 2018 survey found that of the 33 countries in the world that have adopted an unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship model, only six of those are located outside the Americas and the Caribbean. Some researchers have argued that the founders of the United States, in seeking to increase the immigration of “ambitious” Europeans, purposefully adopted birthplace citizenship principles from various existing sources including longstanding theories of natural law and English law. Thus, despite unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship being disproportionately popular among the countries of the Western Hemisphere, none of which is older than the eighteenth century, researchers trace the roots of birthplace-based citizenship to much older traditions adopted by the founders of the United States.



https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states

[BBB]

Potentially it is part of a stair step process for weakening citizenship as a whole and making it subject to the judgement of a government rather than something an individual's birth guarantees. It is a classic move. You begin with punitive measures directed at the liminal groups or special cases where public support is strong and then move from there to widen the scope of enforcement through an if-X-then-Y process until the public as a whole is subject to the government's definition. If the government - with the courts' blessings - controls the definition, then they can make anyone not-a-citizen. It doesn't matter who the person is or where they came from. Whatever the government says goes. So it isn't about immigration as much as it is power and control. Immigration is just a small part of the whole.

If this proves to the case, the Felon in the White House is the one not thinking ahead. After four years of turning the country upside down on account of his thin skin and poor grasp of things such as history, economics, law and ethics the FITWH will be striding along the lawn at the White House to be whisked away by helicopter feeling pleased enough that he (a) avoided jail, (b) screwed those commie lefty liberals and (c) expanded his bank account and that of his 'friends' courtesy of the tax payer. That is until he discovers immigration officials waiting as the helicopter lands. Alas the retirement party is crashed when Mrs Trump is taken away by handcuffs and sent with a one way ticket to Slovenia. In cattle class. Citizenship stripped.

[j44ke]

If this proves to the case, the Felon in the White House is the one not thinking ahead. After four years of turning the country upside down on account of his thin skin and poor grasp of things such as history, economics, law and ethics the FITWH will be striding along the lawn at the White House to be whisked away by helicopter feeling pleased enough that he (a) avoided jail, (b) screwed those commie lefty liberals and (c) expanded his bank account and that of his 'friends' courtesy of the tax payer. That is until he discovers immigration officials waiting as the helicopter lands. Alas the retirement party is crashed when Mrs Trump is taken away by handcuffs and sent with a one way ticket to Slovenia. In cattle class. Citizenship stripped.

Which is why people like Putin can never step away from power.

[fastupslowdown]

I reluctantly agree with Schumer's caving. As a federal employee, I may be biased. But there is an arcane rule (that afaik has never been exercised before, which means nothing now) allowing the executive branch to RIF any employees who've been in furlough status for more than 30 days. During a shutdown, that's about a third of government. That would be catastrophic, and likely a worse outcome than whatever they can do while government is open. It also explains why Musk is gunning for a shutdown, per multiple sources.

While I get Schumer's thinking and would probably have done similar looking back on his tenure I"m very disappointed. He's never shown the leadership and tactical skills that Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell have. Honestly I think the sole reason he got the job as Majority and now Minority leader is due to his fund raising skills.

AOC wants Schumer's job, but honestly I think she'd be worse.