What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Lexicus]

He didn't say supporting basic rights was extremism, he said supporting open borders is. And that is a pretty extreme position to take since supporting open borders is essentially a declaration that you don't believe nations should exist.

So, do you think it is an extreme proposition to say that someone's place of birth should not determine their treatment under the law?

 

[Estebonrober]

He didn't say supporting basic rights was extremism, he said supporting open borders is. And that is a pretty extreme position to take since supporting open borders is essentially a declaration that you don't believe nations should exist.

Yea I’m not a fan of nations in their present construction which seems to be in a process of regression in the west.

it wasn’t that long ago where European and North American consensus was that people’s should all have access to basic civil rights no matter their origination.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why not? Local politicians are entirely capable of making things worse for people. More so, in the short term, given their more direct influence over the day-to-day life of their constituents.

Local politicians can play holy hell, but generally their stuff isn't rooted in their choice between the two political party affiliations they might have.

Example:

Spoiler :

My city stupidly elected a new mayor in 2018. Republican, replacing the previous Republican. The former mayor for the most part kept his being a Republican to himself, while the new one does yammer on a good bit about how the "liberal Democrats in Sacramento" are the root of all evil, but in the day to day of the city none of that really matters.

What matters, or at least one big thing that matters, is the city's 'rainy day fund.'

It's important to understand that the rainy day fund casual reference is inaccurate because it never had anything to do with rain. It started out as a loosely designated account where the city has been saving up for the inevitable catastrophic failure of the sewer system. For over a decade the city has been feeding money into this account, because it is a just plain fact that the sewer system in the central part of the city was built when the city was a tenth of the current size and despite design efforts to make all expansions of the sewer system flow away from the old city there have been numerous 'necessary exceptions' over the decades and thus the system is now required to operate above capacity. Another just plain fact is that even though the city has been running an awareness campaign regarding the problems from just running fats, oils, and grease down the drains (I have at least a dozen dish scrapers because they give them away at every city function) the old parts of the system are mostly diminished to half their flow area, at most, because of congealed grease deposits.

tl;dr the city sewers are a ticking time bomb.

And the new mayor, in his efforts to glad hand the populace and ensure his re-election has lead the council into 'dipping just a bit into this rainy day fund.' After all, the economy is booming so there's no immediate emergency in sight, and we've been holding ourselves back with needless pessimism for too long. The account isn't clearly marked "do not open until the sewer explodes" so he's opened a couple new parks, improved the quality of entertainment for the summer concerts in the park series, etc. And of course the same stupid people who voted for him are all fawning at his feet for "the good things he has brought to the city."

City staff, and the people who really pay close attention to the operation of the city, are aware of the risks of the path he has chosen, but he doesn't give a damn. And that, like most local government issues, is not a function of political party.

 

[Traitorfish]

And how would you know which type it was if you don't know who it was?

I don't. But your objection was "I voted for good boys", it was "I voted for local politicians". What did you mean by that, if not that local politicians were immune to the charge "make everything worse for everyone"?

 

[bernie14]

sure personally I value my children over yours but that doesn’t mean I don’t think your children aren’t worthy of basic civil rights. You call basic civil rights rights privilege and I think that’s immoral.

It is definitely a moral judgement like slavery was two hundred years ago.

well, it is a privilege, whether you find it immoral or not. There are there multitudes of people that do not possess basic civil rights around the world

 

[rah]

Local politicians can play holy hell, but generally their stuff isn't rooted in their choice between the two political party affiliations they might have.

Good luck getting people to agree with that.
But most people that don't know this probably live in another country so we can forgive their ignorance.

 

[Synobun]

Good luck getting people to agree with that.
But most people that don't know this probably live in another country so we can forgive their ignorance.

Why would a local Republican representative not owned by the GOP wear a MAGA hat? I'm struggling to see the relevance of "Hey, some of them are just Republican in name and are stand-up dudes" to your OP beyond a vague assertion that Republicans aren't one entity. But you're specifically referring to MAGA, so what's the connection between MAGA and your good-boy local reps?

 

[rah]

I don't. But your objection was "I voted for good boys", it was "I voted for local politicians". What did you mean by that, if not that local politicians were immune to the charge "make everything worse for everyone"?

Actually if you had read other posts you would seen where I did say that they were good men that weren't racists (as far as I could tell)
My reference to local was the office that the were running for. Local vs Federal, where I have not voted for a republican in a while.

 

[rah]

Why would a local Republican representative not owned by the GOP wear a MAGA hat?

Where did I say the the local politician that I voted for wore a MEGA hat? Not every republican wears them. Contrary to popular belief they all don't support trump.
Where do you guys get your facts from?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That seems to sum it up.

This, my friends, is acting like a victim.

It's not about YOU it's about the effects ofand ramifications of your actions.

Really seems to me that you want to be able to vote for whoever, whatever you want but not have to face any social consequences even as your vote fudgs over people with far less privilege then you.

That's what annoys me about this whole conversation, people like civvver et al would prefer if we just shut up and accepted them fudging us over, but times are changing and it's becoming increasingly gauche to demand the victims of your vote to be quiet.

You point out the consequences of their votes and they kvetch but if you point out that their votes for a regressive party like the GOP disproportionately harms minorities and women and they're silent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Good luck getting people to agree with that.
But most people that don't know this probably live in another country so we can forgive their ignorance.

I actually think most people who take even a cursory look at city government have no choice but to agree with it. I'm quite sure that Chicago is the mirror of my little Palmdale. Here, to run for city office without the blessing and endorsement of the AV Republican Club is Quiotic and charming, but has not even the slightest shred of a chance at succeeding. I'm sure that local elections in Chicago are similarly a decision making process to see what Democrat is going to win. Most local governments represent a population that is on one side or the other of the national divide, so anyone who wants to run joins the appropriate party and then has to run on the local issues.

In this town if you try to run for office without being a member of the AVRC you will almost certainly wind up in jail, since the local district attorney will file the first charge brought by the club president's henchmen in the local sheriff's station.

 

[Commodore]

So, do you think it is an extreme proposition to say that someone's place of birth should not determine their treatment under the law?

Yes that is an extreme position to take. I'll use an example from my time as an intelligence collector to illustrate why. When it comes to who the US military can collect intelligence on, the law makes it very clear that the military cannot collect intelligence on US persons (defined as any citizen or legal resident of the US) and if they do so accidentally, they must pass that intelligence on to the relevant law enforcement agency or dispose of it within 90 days of collecting it. Obviously, no such restrictions exist when it comes to the collection of intelligence on foreigners and we can more or less spy on them as much as we want and use any underhanded tactic we want to do it. This is because US persons are protected by the 4th Amendment and foreigners are not.

That's a clear example of someone's place of birth determining how they are treated under US law. Are you really going to take the position that it is unreasonable for our government to not extend 4th Amendment protections to foreigners in that manner? If so, that is an extreme position.

 

[rah]

This, my friends, is acting like a victim.

You act like the biggest victim here. You even did it in the post you complained about others. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Synobun]

Where did I say the the local politician that I voted for wore a MEGA hat? Not every republican wears them. Contrary to popular belief they all don't support trump.
Where do you guys get your facts from?

I too like to delete parts of another person's post and then ask snide questions that are answered by the deleted contents.

Why would a local Republican representative not owned by the GOP wear a MAGA hat? I'm struggling to see the relevance of "Hey, some of them are just Republican in name and are stand-up dudes" to your OP beyond a vague assertion that Republicans aren't one entity. But you're specifically referring to MAGA, so what's the connection between MAGA and your good-boy local reps?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You act like the biggest victim here. You even did it in the post you complained about others. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, transpeople do tend to be the victims of negative policies of the GOP.

You still haven't told us the individual republican candidates you've voted for and how they're somehow different from the gop body or why anyone would or should give them the benefit of the doubt.

The whole body is rotten.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes that is an extreme position to take. I'll use an example from my time as an intelligence collector to illustrate why. When it comes to who the US military can collect intelligence on, the law makes it very clear that the military cannot collect intelligence on US persons (defined as any citizen or legal resident of the US) and if they do so accidentally, they must pass that intelligence on to the relevant law enforcement agency or dispose of it within 90 days of collecting it. Obviously, no such restrictions exist when it comes to the collection of intelligence on foreigners and we can more or less spy on them as much as we want and use any underhanded tactic we want to do it. This is because US persons are protected by the 4th Amendment and foreigners are not.

That's a clear example of someone's place of birth determining how they are treated under US law. Are you really going to take the position that it is unreasonable for our government to not extend 4th Amendment protections to foreigners in that manner? If so, that is an extreme position.

*shrugs* in fairness to you, you haven't been known to go off on rants about the superiority of Western civilization.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you really going to take the position that it is unreasonable for our government to not extend 4th Amendment protections to foreigners in that manner? If so, that is an extreme position.

Well, you kinda have to crap on the preamble if you insist that not all people were created equal, no?
Anyway, the Supreme Court has often had to parse when the Constitution clearly applied to all people within the borders (citizens or not). I think it was just recently that the courts were struggling to figure out if non-citizens (present legally) were protected under the 2nd Amendment. When Iraqis were being forcibly disarmed, it wasn't settled law. The American government just disarmed them while also suggesting they form a free government.

 

[Synobun]

"Imagine a world where we can't carte blanche torture and spy on foreigners. Imagine it, Lexicus. Are you afraid?"

"I dunno, man, sounds kinda chill to me..."

 

[Commodore]

The American government just disarmed them while also suggesting they form a free government

To be fair though, the disarmament of Iraqi citizens was only a temporary measure. Later in our occupation we loosened up the restrictions and allowed one firearm per household for the purpose of self-defense.

 

[Yeekim]

MAGA is Trump's personal campaign slogan, right? I wonder what non-racist/non-bigoted reasons to support him (him personally) (can still be believed to) exist? Which of his personal qualities or policies are worthy of ignoring his track record on the minority rights in favor of "bigger picture"?