Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure seems to rankle some people that Trump did what he should do. All sorts of constitutional scholars have appeared to give us instruction. Kinda funny, I think, how people will lecture the world about "appropriation of money" and then demonstrate that they have not a clue what that means.
Trump did it. The predictable states filed suite. Construction will be complete in two years. The butterflies will adapt.
It's all pretty simple.
Anti-wall liberals value the lives of butterflies and illegal aliens over our own citizens.
We are not all equally victimized by confirmation bias in the same ways. Some people are better at objective reason, critical thinking than others. No different than how some people are better at math than others. There are also all manner of ways to avoid confirmation bias that I have also touched upon more than a few times in this forum. What I have referred to as "triangulating for the truth." Some bother some don't, of course, but the need to do so remains if it is the truth you seek.
We are different in that I do fault those who produce distorted "talking points" (misrepresentations of the truth) just as I fault those who consume them. I also have no hesitation about applying firm judgment about the opinions of others. On the contrary, I think we must apply such judgement, in a fair, reasoned objective manner! Or we are hardly better than sheep...
There are multiple subtopics here, so I appreciate this veers somewhat from your point. Before I wander off below ... We agree that the distorted talking points are beyond objectionable. Personally, they irritate like hell. It's a form of political manipulation that is unacceptable. Below, I start talking about principals - trying to find some way to organize how we interact - what lines should not be crossed. The principals are not content-loaded (an opinion or judgment) but more process-oriented.
When it comes to confirmation bias (which per the above originates in how we neurologically process information) we might be at a "chicken or egg moment", what comes first. My observation is folks develop certain mindsets then fit the facts into that. Your point, exactly. So aren't we really saying that some should simply believe differently? That's where I balk. Because I think we are like sheep. Thinking of evolution, belonging to the tribe (better that term than flock!) was functional. Human society now enhances or makes possible "the individual" - but that's a development new in time. Still humans evolve ... thru epigenetics etc. we can over time become better.
I so need to be doing something else ... but this is worth it. Opinion and judgment derive from our underlying value set. That's not to say that some judgments (murder) if only through common consensus can't reach the point of the near-absolute. That's also not to say that we personally should not form opinions and judgments. Doing that helps us over time to become less sheep-like. The question is how we synthesize those opinions with ones held by others. This is integral to how our democracy not to mention society or culture functions.
The poster above said something important - that you cannot abandon principals or rules to achieve specific ends. He's an anarcho-capitalist and so no doubt that applies to personal conduct. But it can also be said to apply to the state.
One of the near-absolute principals should be a respect for law. That should be the starting point for whether or not to object to the national emergency. The statute (in my opinion) is not intended to address this sort of so-called crisis. It should be possible to adopt that view regardless of how one may view immigration. (Doesn't work that way, of course, but it's a goal or perhaps a step on the road to becoming less sheep-like).
For the same reason I also object to the use of our current asylum laws to handle the influx of household units many of whom now ask for asylum. That says nothing about how I feel about immigration or humanitarian concerns. It's instead based on that same need to apply laws as they were intended.
But how I might respond to an immigration-related action also takes into the account those who might feel differently - their judgments - if only because they, too, are US citizens. I may not want to be linked with certain actions and as a citizen might have a moral duty to advocate against some US-action.
I'd have to go back to see how I framed this earlier. But, yes, we start from opinions or judgments. The question then is what we do with the judgments of tribe members that differ? They will be expressed in a democracy thru voting. These judgments will impact our lives. It is within that framework that I "accept" both the judgment and the rights of others to make them. I may not understand why or how they reached that judgment. But I'd like to start with an attempt to understand with a presumption of good faith, until someone on the individual level demonstrates differently. I also "accept" the judgment in that it may reflect cultural or societal dictates that differ from mine. Not only do we live within a democracy, we live within a multicultural society that (while I highly value it) comes with certain challenges. This is our tribe - or our flock.
This is not to say that bad actors may not come on the scene. Or that there's no need for diligence. Or civil action. That's why I drew the distinction between those who disseminate misinformation compared to those who consume it.
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-21-2019 at 11:46 AM..
Not sure anyone has or can "deny that human the right to form the belief." I've never made any such assertion anyway. Might be you've created a little straw man argument for yourself there I think...
Best to blow that straw man away then. Good that he's not needed (or valid).
Hard enough to try to form or express a coherent set of personal beliefs to overlay what already are contentious discussions ... much less to understand another's ... no wonder this society is at such odds!
EDITED TO ADD: I did go back to reread. While a response to your question, it was an attempt to formulate what is "belief" for myself without necessarily contrasting it to your thoughts. Going there for another is always fraught with error.
The word "deny" did not mean you were denying - or would - my statement. Rather, there is a general tendency when we dislike a particular belief to respond "why you can't think THAT." This does not always distinguish the content of the belief from whatever process that person went thru to formulate it. Per the earlier, we analyze that process from different perspectives. Still, best (per my point) to invalidate the belief not the person. No doubt you agree.
And I agree that few would outright "deny that human right to form the belief." No thought police here! Some places, yes. (This isn't the place for it. But for the topic in another common thread there are organized efforts on the government level to "deny" the expression of certain beliefs. They are far ranging and that they exist is stunning. Another day, in that thread maybe.)
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-21-2019 at 12:50 PM..
Of course I'm always amazed if not impressed to see how Trump's fixer can be brought to the point of prison by somehow squeezing away at the truth like these investigations can do over time, but sometimes the truth and justice do seem to emerge above all the rest, despite all the rest.
Now too of course we see the Republicans doing what they can to discredit Cohen, but of course Cohen was Trump's guy! Just like all the rest of Trump's picks who eventually became not only Trump's enemies but "enemies of the state!"
None of us really knew what to expect from a POTUS like Trump, but no matter how bad it gets, I'm not sure any of us who didn't vote for the man expected much better...
One of the basic ideas of the Constitution is that (1) Presidents don't make the laws, and (2) certain powers - including Power of the Purse - are reserved for the Congress.
With this "national emergency," you conservatives support your guy just bypassing Congress altogether and implementing his policies (which he couldn't get support through Congress) via royal decree.
That's basically called a dictatorship. Might as well disband Congress and just annoint Donald as King.
If you're for this stuff, then you're opposed to the spirit and concept of the Constitution.
didn't Obama did the same thing by creating DACA in 2012 when Senate voted down Dream Act in 2010?
DACA gives unauthorized immigrants work permit and exempt from deportation....when Congress made it clear that those here without our authorization would be placed in removal proceedings. They amended into Title 8 of the US Code section 1225(b)(2)(A), which reads “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”
didn't Obama did the same thing by creating DACA in 2012 when Senate voted down Dream Act in 2010?
DACA gives unauthorized immigrants work permit and exempt from deportation....when Congress made it clear that those here without our authorization would be placed in removal proceedings. They amended into Title 8 of the US Code section 1225(b)(2)(A), which reads “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”
So two wrongs make a right, is your claim?
Double edged swords cut both ways. Republicans won't hold the presidency forever. Next national emergency could be health care and/or climate change. Give them an inch, they'll take a foot, give a foot, they'll take a yard. Give the man a rope, he thinks he's a cowboy.
Double edged swords cut both ways. Republicans won't hold the presidency forever. Next national emergency could be health care and/or climate change. Give them an inch, they'll take a foot, give a foot, they'll take a yard. Give the man a rope, he thinks he's a cowboy.
Did you ***** when Obama by passing Congress and Senate with his EO on DACA in 2012?
If not, then you have no right when Trump does the exact same thing.
Meanwhile back down on the butterfly preserve ... the Butterfly Center lost its first round in court, although I think they are appealing.
"Unfortunately for plaintiff, the Fourth Amendment offers little refuge for unenclosed land near one of the country's external borders," [U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon] says. ... At its heart, the legal action is about "Constitutional protections, the right to due process, the illegal waiver of laws duly enacted by Congress and the lawlessness of the federal government's actions," [Butterfly Center director Marianna Trevino Wright] said in a statement. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...505898021.html
Per a half-heard interview, the machines to clear a path for a wall remain on the butterfly preserve but are holding off pending Congressional action and I suppose the final Trump veto.
Double edged swords cut both ways. Republicans won't hold the presidency forever. Next national emergency could be health care and/or climate change. Give them an inch, they'll take a foot, give a foot, they'll take a yard. Give the man a rope, he thinks he's a cowboy.
A president has the right to declare a national emergency but Obama had no legal right to bypass congress with his DACA and DAPA programs so there was no two wrong here only one on the part of Obama. Why didn't you and yours give a damn about that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
