2020 US Election (Part One)

[Sommerswerd]

It is especially serious because it attacks a core principle of any civilized society: the rule of law above anything and everything.
...
I don't want my children to have to look, once again, for a new country where the Rule of Law is king and the lawbreakers are not only punished, but not let in.

To the extent that America has any "core value" it certainly isn't "the rule of law"... its Freedom... the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, say whatever they want, think whatever they want, go wherever they want, eat whatever they want, worship however they want, vote however they want, love (or sex) whoever they want, and do it all whenever they want.

If anything the "core value" of Americans is about as contrary to the "rule of law" as it gets... we Americans are actually pretty rule averse... but its the kind of thing that you might not get if you aren't American. People have a tendency sometimes to idealize America and project their own dreams and values onto America.

So we need to seriously address speeding which occurs far more that 10,000,000 times per day at the misdemeanor level?

Speeding is a national emergency! Mothball the Marines and divert the funds to Highway patrol! These speeders must be stopped at any cost!

 

[Takhisis]

Being one of the relatively few posters here who actually do reside in a dysfunctional South American banana republic and also reads the news, I would say that Aristos' highly disrespectful view fo the place is so devoid of nuance as to be caricaturesque. Say what you like, but it's popular demonstrations that will bring Maduro down and it was the popular vote that took the Kirchners out of the picture.

Sure, these are countries with structural problems that will take generations to solve, but we will get somewhere. In fact, if foreign governments (the US, historically the UK, China, Russia, etc.) hadn't actively tried to destroy civic conscience and foment corruptionat all levels this corner of the world would probably be doing better. It takes two to tango.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's weird where the cognitive breakdown comes from. For example, I can easily understand why a legal immigrant would be bitter about poor enforcement regarding illegal immigrants.

I mean, I come from refugee stock, so it might be intuitively obvious as to why I have a soft spot for refugees. If I came from stock that had to jump through massive hurdles in order to get in, I might have sympathy for people who also jumped through massive hurdles. I already do, and it's not even my cohort. It would be hard for me to remember that legal immigrants have protections that illegal immigrants just don't have.

Matthew 20 will remind us about jealousy to someone who got given the same for doing less. And it's not even a parable about someone getting less for doing less.

The intense rejection of Republicans by landed and first-generation immigrants, and the fear that immigrants will be used to build power against the Republicans, tells us something about the messaging. Like, only a bonehead would fail to understand that Republicans are trying to protect current immigrants from future immigrants. And yet, rejection.

I could reframe all of the above using some pretty deep sarcasm. Seems unnecessary

 

[Takhisis]

Look, if it's about economic expansion then saying that there's no more room for people is simply laughable, because continued growth requires a larger market and a larger workforce to increase productive capacity for that expanding market and so on. Of course, explaining that to the voters of a ‘successful businessman’ who went bankrupt… how many times? (does the one sitting in his tax returns count? this is just financial, not moral bankruptcy) is probably a hard task.

 

[BenitoChavez]

To the extent that America has any "core value" it certainly isn't "the rule of law"... its Freedom... the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, say whatever they want, think whatever they want, go wherever they want, eat whatever they want, worship however they want, vote however they want, love (or sex) whoever they want, and do it all whenever they want.

If anything the "core value" of Americans is about as contrary to the "rule of law" as it gets... we Americans are actually pretty rule averse... but its the kind of thing that you might not get if you aren't American. People have a tendency sometimes to idealize America and project their own dreams and values onto America.

Sure we idolize Freedom. The power of the individual. The Wild West. But we also prop up The Constitution and our institutions as the pillars of our democracy. Us Americans are very much a mixed bag.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, a misdemeanor is a pretty broad range. And I do want the government to enforce against misdemeanors. There's a spread: crimes of violence, crimes of property, and non-violent crimes. Asking me to chose between them is pretty easy, and I'll answer according to my specific whim. But, I think we'd easily get a broad consensus. Maybe not on any specific ordering, but a vibe.

So, it depends on the underlying motive for the crime. I can see why we'd enforce it, regardless. And I can see why any specific crime is actually unmasking a deeper issue that needs solving.

Illegal entry to live in uncertain conditions to work? I have sympathy for that. It's still a misdemeanor. I've seen people speed to get to a job interview, which (when using broad definitions) is pretty similar. I mean, I understand why you did it. I understand why we ticket for it. But, I also know many people who just regularly speed to get to work or even to get home from work. So, context. I don't want people speeding to get to a job interview. But, I'd not want to hear contempt from people willing to commit a victimless misdemeanor just to get home.

I don't have iron-clad solutions to illegal border crossing, since there are many motivations and a mix of incentives to do so. But I hold a pie-chart of possibilities for what any individual would represent of the whole. I once crossed provincial borders merely to get better healthcare, so I can understand why someone would do so. But, upon arriving, I've spent time in the presence of people who feel justified in cheating on their taxes, so the spread of what people seem to tolerate in non-violent crimes is sometimes stunning.

I wasn't suggesting a "no enforcement" policy regarding misdemeanor crimes. I was just pointing out that spending far more prosecuting misdemeanors while felony cases go cold in droves for lack of interest is poor prioritization.

Being one of the relatively few posters here who actually do reside in a dysfunctional South American banana republic and also reads the news, I would say that Aristos' highly disrespectful view fo the place is so devoid of nuance as to be caricaturesque. Say what you like, but it's popular demonstrations that will bring Maduro down and it was the popular vote that took the Kirchners out of the picture.

Sure, these are countries with structural problems that will take generations to solve, but we will get somewhere. In fact, if foreign governments (the US, historically the UK, China, Russia, etc.) hadn't actively tried to destroy civic conscience and foment corruptionat all levels this corner of the world would probably be doing better. It takes two to tango.

Caricature and also familiar. Who was that guy who used to claim him parents brought him to Canada from Chile, and basically sounded like it must have happened when Pinochet was overthrown and his father's job with the secret police became untenable?

 

[Takhisis]

I don't recall but that was not Aristos.

Hey, that's another one right there: Pinochet had to leave because he lost a referendum.

 

[El_Machinae]

To the extent that America has any "core value" it certainly isn't "the rule of law"... its Freedom... the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, say whatever they want, think whatever they want, go wherever they want, eat whatever they want, worship however they want, vote however they want, love (or sex) whoever they want, and do it all whenever they want.

Another potential lexical breakdown, but I hope to nip it in the bud. "Rule of Law" has a more precise meaning than some might interpret colloquially. I don't know what the other person means, but it leaps out as a term that can cause a needless fight.

http://tcantine.blogspot.com/2018/06/rule-of-law-law-and-order.html?m=1
Here's a breakdown regarding the time Pence (seriously) misused the term. We don't want the bait and switch between precise and colloquial to occur!
Summarized, but the entire post is very accessible.

But "law and order" and "rule of law" are absolutely not the same thing. "Law and order" is what you have when the people obey the law, and sometimes that may require government authorities to enforce the law. "Rule of law" is when those government authorities themselves obey the law.
The two ideas are complementary, and having one makes it easier to have the other, but they are not at all the same

 

[Aristos]

To the extent that America has any "core value" it certainly isn't "the rule of law"... its Freedom... the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, say whatever they want, think whatever they want, go wherever they want, eat whatever they want, worship however they want, vote however they want, love (or sex) whoever they want, and do it all whenever they want.

... whatever they want, as long as it does not infringe on someone else's rights. The very definition of the rule of law.

Caricature and also familiar. Who was that guy who used to claim him parents brought him to Canada from Chile, and basically sounded like it must have happened when Pinochet was overthrown and his father's job with the secret police became untenable?

Ad Hominem fallacy. Is that all you got? Seriously? For the record, no, I am not that guy. For the record, also, and this transpires a huge amount of ignorance, Pinochet was never overthrown, he was elected out in a free referendum that he himself called when he realized he had lost the support of the majority. Some dictator, huh? Ignorance is not a defense either.

Another one for the record, from my father's own experience: he used to visit Chile in the early 70's due to sport commitments, and the last time he did, just before the coup of 73, he came back terrified. He always used to remember and tell us of those days when he last visited, and saw and heard hundreds of Cuban operatives roaming the streets of Santiago. Sounds familiar? Yeap... Venezuela. But no, when it's the left, it's not an invasion, correct? (Oh, and no, my father was not lying to me, he was an honest guy in a dishonest place, but you can do whatever you want with this anecdote, if you want to believe it or not... your problem).

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Recent discussion has had nothing to do with the 2020 election. Please return to the topic here, and create a separate thread should you wish to discuss another topic.

 

[onejayhawk]

There is a piece in Atlantic which headlines a dilemma, "Democrats Have to Decide Whether Faith Is an Asset for 2020."

Pete Buttigieg, who is opening gay, is embracing faith as a campaign issue. Even before he knocks heads with conservative sects, who believe homosexuality is a sin, Buttigieg has the Democratic party to deal with. In recent campaigns, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton openly mocked religious conservatives. Are religious liberal that much different?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/buttigieg-democrats-religious-left/586492/

J

 

[Berzerker]

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/03/11/pete-buttigieg-harvard-marijuana

sounds like an honorable man, he took the blame for someone else's joint

or, he's a druggie who helped a criminal escape justice

 

[Zkribbler]

Barack Obama openly mocked religious conservatives.
J

I don't remember this at all. --Are you talking about his observation that, during tough economic times, people tend to cling more to their guns and religion? That's not "mocking."

Obama exalted his Christian faith, making it the subject of Chapter 2 in his best selling The Audacity of Hope.

Jimmy Carter was the first President in recent times to make his religion a cornerstone of his political policies.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd like to point out what happened after that 'mocking'. Let's call the 'guns and religion' part of the Republican base. They ended up rejecting McCain. Romney. and then the entire Republican establishment. The statement of "the Republican establishment wasn't helping this base" ended up being perceived as true.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pete Buttigieg, who is opening gay, is embracing faith as a campaign issue. Even before he knocks heads with conservative sects,
J

You are referring to the Evangelicals, who use religion as a political weapon but exhibit no actual faith, correct? I mean, these same "conservative sects" consider a great many things that Trump does to be sins, don't they?

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't remember this at all. --Are you talking about his observation that, during tough economic times, people tend to cling more to their guns and religion? That's not "mocking." Obama exalted his Christian faith, making it the subject of Chapter 2 in his best selling The Audacity of Hope. Jimmy Carter was the first President in recent times to make his religion a cornerstone of his political policies.

It was the God's, guns and bitterness quote. These are the actual words, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." I never read his campaign literature, of which Audacity is part, but I will acknowledge he had a regular church in Chicago. Many Presidents have been less regular in DC.

Carter is an ordained minister and IIRC the only one. He would be a great neighbor but he was a cautionary tale as the Chief Executive.

I'd like to point out what happened after that 'mocking'. Let's call the 'guns and religion' part of the Republican base. They ended up rejecting McCain. Romney. and then the entire Republican establishment. The statement of "the Republican establishment wasn't helping this base" ended up being perceived as true.

I'm not sure I'm with you on this. Trump's base comes from this group. If you mean the Republican establishment had no part in securing these people to Trump, I will concede that much.

J

 

[Sickening]

There is a piece in Atlantic which headlines a dilemma, "Democrats Have to Decide Whether Faith Is an Asset for 2020."

Pete Buttigieg, who is opening gay, is embracing faith as a campaign issue. Even before he knocks heads with conservative sects, who believe homosexuality is a sin, Buttigieg has the Democratic party to deal with. In recent campaigns, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton openly mocked religious conservatives. Are religious liberal that much different?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/buttigieg-democrats-religious-left/586492/

J

Yes

 

[schlaufuchs]

Misdemeanor or not, it is breaking the law. It is especially serious because it attacks a core principle of any civilized society: the rule of law above anything and everything. Even if you disagree with the law. People that break it, any law, right from the beginning, are attacking that core principle from the start. If you don't see anything wrong with it, and see only "tangents", maybe you should reconsider your line of thinking, perhaps aided by some visit to one of those countries, not as a tourist, but as an objective observer that tries to learn what their mindset is, what such a mindset can do to your (still existing?) core values and principles. Try that, and then come back to me.

Did MLK represent an attack against the core principle of civilized society? Or rather: were MLK's actions moral within the framework of this "civilized society" ontology?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm asking completely out of ignorance, but what is the legislation for working under the table or paying under the table?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another potential lexical breakdown, but I hope to nip it in the bud. "Rule of Law" has a more precise meaning than some might interpret colloquially. I don't know what the other person means, but it leaps out as a term that can cause a needless fight.

http://tcantine.blogspot.com/2018/06/rule-of-law-law-and-order.html?m=1
Here's a breakdown regarding the time Pence (seriously) misused the term. We don't want the bait and switch between precise and colloquial to occur!
Summarized, but the entire post is very accessible.

As a general rule... I've started handwaiving the "technical versus practical" tangent as boring and mostly raised as a deflection. This isnt a criticism of you or your post, mind you... it's just that after all these years I've grown weary of fighting over those semantic nuances in situations where it's clear what folks are talking about. It comes up way more than it should and it's way too often in bad faith.