Jump to content

Post election thoughts and possible future trends


Carrie Mathison
 Share

Recommended Posts

The real question is-- will Pence be able to open the federally funded Gay re-education camps. That'll go over great.

Heh.

 

Well, in all seriousness, Trump came out in his 60 minutes interview and said, pretty decisively, that he had no plans to try and overturn gay marriage.

 

So, some of what I predicted is already coming to fruition. It's a dead issue and the GOP knows it. I don't think we'll ever see it debated on the campaign trail again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay marriage, sure... but what about Roe V Wade?

 

I remember you saying despite being pro-choice you'd vote for a pro-life candidate since there was no likelihood of RvW getting overturned.

 

This is a big liberal vs conservative thing I think. A conservative has no problem voting for somebody they disagree with under the right logic constraints-- but a liberal would never consider voting for somebody whose morals don't align with their own.

 

I think both ways are detrimental in their own ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it happening. Let's say Trump replaces Scalia with a die-hard social conservative (which he'll likely do, to throw a bone to the base). There still aren't the votes.

 

Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer are all getting up there, so it's possible Trump gets at least one more appointment, maybe two. If it's just one, it won't be enough, since I don't think Roberts votes to overturn Roe. If it's two... then I suppose it's theoretically possible.

 

But I'd say pretty unlikely. Like less than 5% likely. Reason being, Trump has already shown he cares little about this type of issue. He said he was pro-life for like 3 seconds, one time, on the campaign because he had to. He's been pro choice before and that's what he actually believes.

 

Given that, I find it unlikely that Trump will choose this issue to draw a line in the sand on when there's plenty else he could spend his political capital on. Trump knows that at the end of the day, the GOP Senate will agree to live with someone that may not overturn Roe, but will at least set a 'pause' on future social issues and not vote to do something like overturn gun rights (Heller). In this game of chicken, Trump wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

since I don't think Roberts votes to overturn Roe.

 

What makes you think that? Roberts has sided with the liberals from time to time, but you'll notice that when he sides with them, it's usually in deference to the other branches. Being a proponent of judicial modesty is hardly at odds with overturning one of the most immodest rulings ever.

 

 

 

Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer are all getting up there, so it's possible Trump gets at least one more appointment, maybe two.

 

I believe one is almost definite. I think Kennedy will retire. He's old and he'll want a Republican to name his replacement.

 

Ginsburg is more likely than not. Once again, I hate to be ghoulish, but she'll be near 87 by the time Trump leaves office and she's already had cancer twice. I'm not liking those odds. And Breyer should be considered just for the fact that he'll be hitting 80 himself soon.

 

I also think there's a fair chance that Thomas retires near the end of Trump's term.

 

 

 

But I'd say pretty unlikely. Like less than 5% likely. Reason being, Trump has already shown he cares little about this type of issue. He said he was pro-life for like 3 seconds, one time, on the campaign because he had to. He's been pro choice before and that's what he actually believes.

 

I don't particularly trust him on the issue either. But he stated flatly that he would choose justices that would overturn Roe on 60 Minutes (something even Bush refused to do). So it wasn't just a campaign thing for 3 seconds. He's already backed away from a ton of his campaign pledges, but he's standing by that one so far.

 

It'd be too much to ask him to give us Pryor. But, if I had to guess, I think he'll go with Sykes. He mentioned her on the campaign trail and she'll keep the Republicans happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like his first order of business is to go after illegal immigrants who have criminal records. I fail to see how anyone would have a problem with this.

 

For that matter why we even have illegal immigrants who've been through the judicial system? How are they able to stay in this country once it is determined that they are here illegally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that they're not. They're deported. But we actually deport a lot of immigrants here illegally and the system is actually overwhelmed. Really depends on the arresting authority. I guess. I'm going based on what I know from San Antonio and surrounding areas. My school kids have had parents deported. They usually end up leaving school and as a US citizen end up living in Mexico. ICE raided Levi's factory when it was open here and scores were deported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh, in the list of things I think are horrible crimes as compared to the seven rings of hell/bad things people do and get caught for undocumented/illegal aliens are lumped in there with Johns who get arrested with a prostitute. Yes, being here illegally is bad but we're deporting and catching to the best of our ability. It's harder to hire undocumented immigrants and actually the amount of people who cross illegally now is far less than decades ago. This could be the easiest thing Trump can do right now is to get a bill passed concerning illegal immigration or/and the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, being here illegally is bad but we're deporting and catching to the best of our ability.

 

Huh? Obama literally ignored the law and made it not only made administration policy not to go after illegal immigrants that were already in the country, but flat out attempted to reverse the law on his own twice with his DAPA and DACA programs.

 

The "Wink and Nod" enforcement policy of the last several decades hit new heights under Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure your understanding is the same about what Obama did as mine. You do understand that's about children? I think being interested in the well being a child who crossed illegally or a child born in the US of undocumented workers is a good thing but I'm biased. I teach these kids who've experienced some part of this in their lives. This is why I'd advocate for a change in our policies for illegal immigration. I am not sure though about the new heights. Look at the 70s and demographics concerning immigration and looking away. Obama's policies affect a very small portion of immigrants that have entered the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you immediately go to the extreme? That's not what she's saying. Your comments on immigration that you've made before are what earned you the racism badge in my book. Again-- mystified, cause you seem intelligent-- but you seem to fully believe the THEY TAKE OUR JERBS AND RAPES OUR WIMMENS camp when it comes to people coming into this country. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

Liberals say control guns, control immigration and conservatives hear TAKE THE GUNS! OPEN THE BORDERS! OMG!

 

Immigration needs reform, plain and simple.

 

Read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, then simplify the program. If you come here, work and pay taxes, you can be a citizen. if you work illegally and break no laws, your on probation, meaning get caught go home, behave yourself no foul. If you come in illegally and commit a crime, you are deported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in that camp, no.

 

You say "If you work illegally and break no laws", well isn't working here illegally a form of breaking the law? Are you saying it's OK to break that one law, but if you break any others THEN we should take notice?

 

Don't get your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my bad-- typo. Work legally. As in having a job, getting paid, and reporting the income for tax purposes.

 

Getting paid cash under the table is okay at first I guess-- I mean even I did that at my first few jobs. Most people have. I think a crackdown on the under the table labor hires is needed-- but that's almost more on the people providing the job, not the ones taking them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't have much of an issue with illegal/undocumented workers here who keep their noses clean, but I do think we at least need to make an issue of the ones with criminal records be it here in the US or in Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building a wall or having closed borders to attack that is cutting off your nose to spite your face... or however that saying goes.

 

There's no evidence at all that illegal immigrants are committing more or worse violent crimes than people who already live here.

 

The answer for them is the same as everyone else-- you have to be caught and get due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure your understanding is the same about what Obama did as mine. You do understand that's about children?

 

DACA was about children. DAPA was for adults.

 

And, for what it's worth, while I sympathize and understand how one can become emotional about such things, one does not usually let children keep what their parents have gained through illegal means. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. If a parent gives their child a stolen teddy bear, the child must still give it back. If a college student's father is found to be embezzling the money that was used for the student's tuition, then that college fund must be taken back and the car bought by their parents taken away. Tragic, feels like you're punishing the child. But, in reality, simply returning things to the status quo.

 

Children of illegal immigrants are the victims of their parents' misdeeds. It's unfortunate, but the blame for the logical consequence of those misdeeds, merely ceasing to continue receiving those benefits (removal), rests on the parents, not the state.

 

 

 

Obama's policies affect a very small portion of immigrants that have entered the country.

 

I wouldn't call over 5 million people a very small portion.

 

 

If you come here, work and pay taxes, you can be a citizen.

 

Bedrock and unbreakable rule:

 

The first step to becoming a citizen of the United States should never be to break the laws of the United States. We can discuss whether they can stay reasonably. I recognize the view taken above on children is way too cold for most and am willing to negotiate. But citizenship is permanently off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first step to becoming a citizen of the United States should never be to break the laws of the United States. We can discuss whether they can stay reasonably. I recognize the view taken above on children is way too cold for most and am willing to negotiate. But citizenship is permanently off the table.

Would you be willing to negotiate citizenship in exchange for military service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.