SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the what-separation-of-powers department:
The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The NY Post adds:
The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday January 30 2017, @11:38PM
They started with the Constitution, continued with all sorts of legislation to make past indiscretions legal, and now we get to see a flagrant disregard of a judicial order. No matter where you stand on the issue it is generally held that we obey the laws of the land. This is precisely how fascism progresses, rewriting laws to suit agendas and flagrant disregard for inconvenient laws. This is indeed the slippery slope, and it looks like we're sliding head first into a rule by FUD.
From their own update: We can now expect "public safety" to be a catch all for law enforcement to do whatever they'd like the same way they've been doing for years with "national security". This is the scope creep we have been expecting. But don't worry! It only affects a minor portion of international travelers. Sure sounds like it won't affect anyone living in the US, oh wait, greencard holders are being denied entry to their home. Suddenly there is a new invisible law that only exists in the heads of law enforcement, don't ever make a scene or they will stomp on your face yelling "for the safety of the public!"
Shall I Godwin this thread? Or are the parallels becoming eerily familiar yet? Checks and balances work only as long as they are respected. Seems like some members of the DHS should be thrown in prison right about now, but I'm pretty sure they'll trot out some bullshit and tell everyone to stuff it.
To be supportive of everyone's FUD I will say that if the experts believed this ban would work, and if the ban actually targeted the correct countries, then I would be supportive of it. However, currently the ban doesn't look like it will work given our knowledge of how past terrorists were able to enter various countries.
This ban is bullshit FUD aimed at whipping up partisan hatred: the left will call the right bigoted racists and the right will call the left traitorous morons. In the meantime families will be split, innocent individuals will be abused, and nothing good will come of it all.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:43PM
Only a market can produce law: Voluntary agreements between individuals, which establish a protocol of interaction whose enforcement is also well defined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:52PM
Hey, Amerikan! How much would you need let me come in you country, to, um, do some businesses? I can pay a lot! In'shalla!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:11AM
Only a market can produce law
Hammurabi says otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:46PM
Again, that's a dictate...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:47PM
Everything is a market as long as there are at least two goods, with one being the price numeral for the rest.
- An actual economist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:42PM
You weird wackos and your "system of contracts between individuals" can't address the huge glaring problems with your approach. You're reinventing the wheel and trying to sell it as antigravity. Probably best to ignore it from now on and stop wasting my own time trying to educate weird idealists.
(Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:17AM
Actually, Mike Godwin, the man who codified Godwin's Law in the first place, pointed out last month that it's okay [washingtonpost.com] to compare leaders to Nazis or Hitler if they actually are like Nazis or Hitler in a substantive way. He specifically mentions Trump:
He explains his reasoning in the linked article, which he wrote for the Washington Post.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:21AM
Oh yes I know, I've just gotten a bit of blowback for using the Nazi reference so I tip toed a little more with some tongue in cheek commentary.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:27AM
Nazis are overused. For some fresh comparisons, the US Civil War has lots of material. Trump is kinda like Jefferson Davis. Bigoted, delusional, and President of less than half the nation. And American. Davis was all too willing to preside over mass butchery. Wouldn't surrender either. Shouldn't he have surrendered unconditionally when the capital, Richmond, fell? Instead, he moved the capital to Danville. How about when Lee surrendered a week later? Nope, wouldn't quit then either, instead fleeing Danville to try to slip out of the country.
Difference is, Hitler was crazy, or at the least much crazier. Hitler committed suicide rather than suffer capture or retreat. Davis did finally find the sense to run, and when captured, took it with some dignity. I'd put Trump between Hitler and Davis on the crazy spectrum, but closer to Davis.
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:03AM
Well, now that we know it was OK... I just want to point out that HRC is just like Hitler. And the 'Protesters' are just like Brownshirts. And you that don't realize this are just like the sheeple of the German public in the 1930s - willfully blind and fully culpable.
This is why comparisons to Hitler and Nazis is generally a bad idea and almost always counterproductive.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:43AM
"I know you are, but what am I!"? That's all you've got? My 5 year old daughter stopped using that as a rhetorical device a couple of years ago. Are you sure we haven't always been at war with Eastasia, while your at it?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:02AM
"won't affect anyone living in the US"
Correct. Greencard holders from those countries who had left the US are a funny case: they very obviously do not live in the US. Nobody living in the USA is affected.
"greencard holders are being denied entry to their home"
No. We have long required greencard holders to spend most of their time in the US or face loss of the greencard. (it's a pre-citizenship immigration tool, not an arbitrary unrevokable privilege) Those who stayed in the US are fine. Those who left the US are still permitted to enter their home, but they will first need to have it shipped to where they now live.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19AM
Did it cross your mind that people who live in the US (on a green card), may have been traveling abroad on business or vacation when the order came down?
"Shame on you for going to London to sign a $50M contract benefiting your US employer. Now go back to the ruins of your dad's Aleppo home!"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38AM
Did it cross your mind we don't give a shit? Get out. Stay out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:19AM
The law is very explicit. You have to "reside" in the US - you have to be a "resident". The only exceptions are for people who travel abroad on government business. People who join the military are considered to be "residing" in the US while on active duty overseas. People working for IBM, Toshiba, or whatever other corporation or company are NOT considered to be "residing" in the US while traveling on company business.
That is the very same law that has been around for administration after administration.
Trump's is the first administration to make a show of enforcing the law.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:36AM
Perhaps that's what the law says, but in practice, the way it is administered is that you have to spend at least one day in the USA every year.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:46AM
So - that's interesting. Let me run that back at you, from another perspective.
For the past 50 years or so, immigration laws have remained largely unchanged. Congress after congress has kicked the can down the road, each one refusing to address immigration reform. Each party in turn has ignored the law of the land, for it's own reasons. Democrats are proclaimed to be admitting potential voters, and Republicans are proclaimed to be looking the other way in the interest of cheap labor.
Now, we have an administration which ran on (among other things) the promise to enforce immigration law. He is (wait for this) ENFORCING THE LAW - that is - he is actually doing the job that the Chief Executive of this country is supposed to do.
Suddenly, we have some people who have been ignoring the law for decades, who are suddenly being made accountable. WHAT A SHOCK!! What I'm hearing in response is something like, "You mean, the law applies to ME???? Why, I have NEVER actually obeyed the law!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:21AM
But he isn't just "enforcing the law". There is nothing in the law that requires the executive branch to deny entry to people of one particular religion from a few countries (which the President doesn't happen to have business interests) that don't have a history of sending terrorists to the USA.
He may have the right to do this, but it is clearly the act of a bigot and it appears that his actions are motivated by his personal business interests.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:06AM
Whoa now - these are people from specific countries, which are considered to pose a threat to the US. It isn't just Muslims who are being denied entry. That little 12 year old girl in Djibouti, who escaped Yemen from her grandparent's home? She's Christian, not Muslim. So, it's not just a Muslim thing. You can call it "primarily aimed at Muslims", but it isn't specific to Muslims. That little girl is going to be the poster child for all the prostests, and she is Christian.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33PM
Read the actual order. You will see that it carves out exceptions for non-muslims.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:35PM
And also, there is no reason to believe that the people from those countries pose a threat to the USA. Recent history suggests that, if the concern is really security, people from Saudi Arabia should be banned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:44PM
Notice the absolute silence on this one glaring point... All supporters of this ban are just small minded people who are afraid of brown skin. When they can't reconcile their own ignorance they just pretend it doesn't exist.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:39PM
>>> people who have been ignoring the law for decades, who are suddenly being made accountable.
I eagerly await Mr. Trump being made accountable for his tax fraud and hiring practices and rental practices and use of undocumented laborers and breaches of contract and all of the other business dealings he got away with for years.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:51PM
I think that is scheduled for the week after Hillary is convicted for selling influence abroad.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:29AM
I don't want to call you an idiot, so please stop spouting misinformed nonsense.
People on an non-resident or resident visa/green card can come and go as they please for business or pleasure, as long as they satisfy minimum stay requirements (the only exceptions are at some phases of processing, where it's recommended to stay inside the US).
I know. Trust me. Experience and a company full of foreigners...
So, if some Syrian on a Green Card went to London to sign some contracts for his US company on Thursday, planning on coming back on Tuesday, that's pretty f--ing legal, normal, and boringly usual.
Being told that she can't rejoin her kids in MN, where she's lived for the last ten years, after Assad slaughtered her parents, is a pretty dickish move. Where is she going to go?
You never got a green card without "extreme vetting". About an inch of paperwork, background checks, fingerprints, and that's the "white educated dude from friendly western country, before 9/11" version. I can't imagine the shit Middle-East people have had to go through since 2001 to get their green cards. "residents" are more likely to be harmless than US-born people. Check the stats.
This is insanity, smoke and mirrors. Don't defend it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:10AM
Well - which law, precisely, guarantees that we admit any body from anywhere? Is there some right to immigrate, that is guaranteed to some group of people? We aren't required to admit anyone at all, if you want to be honest. So - a lot more people want in, than we want to admit. It's a seller's market. We pick and choose.
Syrians and Yemenis are out of style this year. We are still importing some Saudis, but you can expect those to be out of style soon, as well. Don't invest in imported Syrians, Yemenis, or Saudis.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:21AM
We're not talking about "anyone from anywhere". We are talking about LEGAL, PERMANENT US RESIDENTS who have LEGALLY APPLIED to live in the US and have already been APPROVED and ALLOWED to live in the US and have the necessary paperwork to prove it.
Are you wilfully trying to steer the conversation away from what is being discussed or are you just not reading the posts you are replying to? Maybe you need to go get some sleep because frankly, your complete disconnect with the content in this particular subthread makes you look either stupid or dishonest.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:33PM
You're leaving out the word "conditional", which other posters have mentioned. Those legal, permanent, residents are here on condition that they continue to make all of us happy.
Conditional residents. If you do things our way, you can stay. If you don't make a fuss over things you don't like, you can stay. If I rent an apartment, and allow a room mate to move in with me, he's there conditionally. Conditions like, do your laundry, wash some dishes, if you take my beer, you supply some beer next week, don't drape your orgies out the window to attract the attention of the police - things like that. And, I might even want to re-negotiate those conditions at some point in time. Like - I have NEVER seen anyone completely miss the damned toilet as often as you do - from now on, sit like a girl, or move out.
Conditional. They aren't citizens. They don't have a "right" to be here. We can cancel their privileges at any time, with or without notice.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:09PM
Exactly which one of those conditions was violated when Trump arbitrarily decided to deny these people access to their homes, families and jobs?
Once again: These are legal US permanent residents - husbands and wives to Americans, parents to American children - who have done nothing wrong. They pop out of the country for a short spell for whatever reason, only to discover that upon return they are suddenly and without warning considered undesirable based on nothing more than their place of birth and turned around at the airport. Is that really acceptable in your eyes?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:19PM
Ya know, I actually might feel bad about a hard luck case, here or there. That little twelve year old girl stranded in Djibouti, for instance. (not a green card holder, but an applicant to become a citizen) People do get screwed, and the worst cases should be exempted from the rule.
But, the more harping and whining I hear on the subject, the more difficult it becomes to really give a damn.
The poster above claimed that one day per year resident in the US was enough to get by with? I'm saying, "WTF?"
But still, when we get down to it - these people still aren't citizens. They aren't exactly entitled to all the same rights that a citizen is entitled to.
And, it's not like they weren't warned. The freaky looking redheaded guy spent months, running a campaign full of promises to DO SOMETHING about immigration. We don't need those immigrants. Send them home.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM
Well then, thanks for making your position perfectly clear.
It's an utterly reprehensible position IMHO, but at least I know I'm not misunderstanding you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:31PM
Reprehensible? Is that better than deplorable? Am I moving up or down here?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:18PM
Down, actually. Congratulations.
Deplorable is a judgement of character. Reprehensible implies violating some social rule.
Since the US constitution protects your right to say xenophobic crap, we've called the Native American Immigration services to kick your long-term immigrant ass out of the country back to wherever your great-great-great-grandparents came from, because it's a genocidal place so they can't trust you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:48PM
Down. You are such a hypocrite, you stand for the US and freedom and all things good, but then when it comes down to specific issues you waffle based on fear and prejudice. Then you have the gall to hide it behind, as you call them, legal weasel words. I'm sure you will occasionally have decent points, but overall I'm finding your support of the FUD way of live despicable (to give you another adjective for your collection).
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:09AM
Wait, you're saying that to "reside" in the US you have to stay within the country's borders all day, every day, all the time? You can't go abroad to visit relatives, go on holiday or go on business trips. Is that what you are saying?
If not, you need to re-read your post and the post you replied to.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM
Yeah, it's kinda like, you gotta actually maintain your primary residence here, to be considered a resident. There are other time sensitive things in our lives, as citizens. Like, in the service, if we stayed outside the US for xxx days continuously, we could bring in a bunch of booty, tax free. But, they guy who flew home for a week's leave in the middle of the cruise had to pay taxes on all his shit. And, booze. The longer you were out, the more booze you could bring back. And, Cuban cigars - oh, wait. I had to smuggle my cigars back. And, little hot women - oh, wait again. No wild women either.
But, back to those legal residents. You want to go visit Mom, in Borneo? Cool. Go visit. But, if you STAY IN BORNEO for 6, 9, 12 months out of the year, guess what? You aren't RESIDING in the US of A.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:12PM
You do realise that nothing you have posted here is at all pertinent to the conversation, don't you?
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:41AM
Have you ever heard of an overseas holiday? Or is that un-American and deserving of permanent expulsion?
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:05AM
These aren't checks and balances we're talking about. They're blatant abuses of judicial power in order to allow returning immigrants time to return. They know that these rulings will be overturned; they don't care though as long as it serves its purpose for a week or two.
Read US Code 1182. There is no wiggle room. Trump explicitly has the power to do what he has done and there is no way to interpret the relevant bit in any other manner. These are illegal judicial orders.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:50AM
U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II - 1182
Section A:
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admissionExcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
.............
...........
(3) Security and related grounds
.......
(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
First off, 1182 is about individuals and I saw no provision for entire nations. Secondly, the section I quoted specifically states that no one shall be excluded for any reason if it doesn't violate any U.S. laws. Of which, in the constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, shall the ideological traitors that like to comment on this site so vocally care to address this little conflict of law? I've had it with all the self-serving backwards logic trying to justify xenophobia and FUD being used to strip freedoms away from US citizens simply because it matches up with the bullshit so many were raised with. Land of the free, except when politically convenient.
No need to bring up all the bullshit Democrats have pulled, I would only join with you in decrying the crap that is foisted on us by manipulating people's compassion.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:52AM
Sonofabitch I thought I was logged in, AC was me quoting section 1182. It tickles me that you handed me the means to prove you wrong. I didn't do a detailed reading, did I miss a clause which makes it admissible to exclude innocent people?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:17AM
You didn't though. See above.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:45AM
So this [soylentnews.org] is by me and not an AC? Shows AC to me...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:55AM
It's AC, I just saw your "oops" post before I replied.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:16AM
There you are. Black and white. Any class of aliens.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:50AM
My reply to frojack [soylentnews.org]
The two sections seem somewhat conflicting, however if you read the top of 1182:
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
So "class" does not refer to the dictionary term: "a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort."
The code clearly defines the admissible classes and clearly defines the exceptions, you can't just group people together such as "all people with curly hair!". Since such distinctions can become quite tricky to sort out we rely on judges to help interpret the law. As someone else stated here [soylentnews.org] there are now four judges who have issued the same injunction.
Black and white? I think not.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:02AM
Those are simply the ones that are not allowed visas or admission. Even if you read it in the most favorable light possible, class was clearly not exhaustively defined above because those people are already ineligible for admission and the President would never have any need to deny them entry, thus it means what the dictionary says it means.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:17AM
Not how laws work. Unless a word is specifically stated to cover extenuating circumstances such as:
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
"under the following paragraphs" does not mean "and any other situation that the POTUS deems appropriate". The use of "class" in 1182 is very specific, as are the exceptions. Lawyers can't squeeze in a reason to give someone entry that isn't covered in 1182, and likewise they can't deny entry to anyone not covered by the extensive definitions put forth.
Your logic will quickly lead to tyranny if the letter of the law can become subject to human opinion. Legalese is a real word because it refers to the practice of general words obtaining very specific definitions when interpreted as law, and it is why we have ridiculous EULAs. Without legalese anyone could argue any point they'd like and judges could make decisions based on personal opinion of what any given word refers to.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:16AM
No, that law quite explicitly states that those aliens that would normally be allowed in can be denied entry by yon President. Allowing him only the ability to deny the entry of those already denied is not how that law is going to be interpreted by any judge with more intellectual honesty than he has ideals. You're reading what you want instead of what is there.
This action is not without precedent [strongvisa.com] (excuse the pdf and start looking at page nine) either. Every one of the last five Presidents has interpreted and used this law in exactly the same way, though in lesser scope. Interesting side fact: Obama used it more times than any past President.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:13PM
The scope is the big problem along with the rationale. At least four judges disagree with you, but I guess you'll write them off as pinko-commie traitors in the pockets of big media. Stop trying to make it seem like the POTUS is a CEO that can issue any demand because they're on top of the pyramid, that isn't how the US government is set up.
... any judge with more intellectual honesty than he has ideals
So if they don't agree with you then they're intellectually dishonest and operating purely on their personal beliefs? Four judges TMB, four. Probably more in the near future unless they fix this new EO to be in line with US law. Stop blindly defending the action just because you want to stick it to those illegals and Muslims
I looked at page 9:
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in specified ways (e.g., engaging in “actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability” of that country or may lead to or result in the
See, that targets individuals. Also I liked this piece above it:
Distinctions between aliens based on nationality, in contrast, have historically been viewed as a routine feature of immigration legislation and subjected to deferential rational basis” review by the courts
So banning entire nations is a gray area, and can be reversed by the judiciary. If it was good enough for Obama then its good enough for Trump, or are we done comparing the two now that it kind of breaks down your argument?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:12AM
"This is precisely how fascism progresses, rewriting laws to suit agendas and flagrant disregard for inconvenient laws."
You refer to the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Let us not forget that both parties were onboard with all that nonsense. Let us not forget that the Patriot act wasn't cobbled together, overnight, either. It had been sitting on a shelf for years, collecting dust, just waiting for some dire emergency to put the Fear of God® into congress and the American people.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:43AM
Yup, 100% agree. I've called many times for an end to our partisan discussions. Referring to "conservative" or "liberal" is bad enough, but hey we're human and need labels. However, Democraps and Republicants have shown themselves to be servants of the same fascist program. Let us start being more vocal about those institutions being their own thing and not representative of "we the people". They both cleverly twist the emotions of their constituents so that they'll support nasty shit that actually goes against their values.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01AM
Two wrongs do not make a right.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:19AM
But three lefts might make a right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:26PM
If it's on the same road it makes a u-turn, if pedestrians are in the way it makes a murder charge.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:40AM
We can now expect "public safety" to be a catch all for law enforcement to do whatever they'd like...
Maybe you'll be getting a suitable committee [wikipedia.org] to oversee things?
I'm surprised - I avoided yet another Hitler reference.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.