General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 543

There are a lot of progressives similar to Bernie who are running at both state and local levels, and they are doing quite well too. The democratic platform has some very progressive things in it, and while the president doesn't have to follow it, it does show that the voters and the party itself is taking a step to the left. Plus, Hillary didn't really pivot right. She has kept her tuition-free college plan as well as the plan for a public option on healthcare, and continues to oppose the TPP.

 

I hope he fires them and has his kids run his campaign.

 

Buy a lot of anti trump bumper stickers

 

Double the airtime of the daily show and john oliver's thing

 

Ask trump to resign using change.org

 

Obama’s promise to focus on “felons not families” has fallen short

In November 2014, President Barack Obama said that immigration officials would make it a priority to deport immigrants who had committed serious crimes. “We’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security,” Obama said in his address, as he presented a new memo on priorities for the Department of Homeland Security. “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

But data obtained by The Marshall Project, detailing over 300,000 deportations since Obama’s speech, show that has not been the case. The majority — roughly 60 percent — were of immigrants with no criminal conviction or whose only crime was immigration-related, such as illegal entry or re-entry. Twenty-one percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes other than immigration. Fewer than 20 percent had potentially violent convictions, such as assault, DUI or weapons offenses.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement releases an annual breakdown of deportations of criminal and non-criminal immigrants, but the numbers are misleading. Roughly a third of the “criminal aliens” in the provided dataset were convicted of immigration-related crimes only, such as entering the country illegally or possessing fraudulent immigration documents. Prosecution of such crimes has grown significantlysince the 1990s.

...

Several immigration lawyers said that since Obama’s new enforcement priorities, they’ve noticed tougher enforcement for immigrants who committed lower-level crimes decades earlier. More than one in five of those deported for a non-immigration offense were convicted in 2005 or before, half of which were nonviolent offenses.

“I had never seen people getting picked up at home for an old DUI charge until recently,” said Peter Corrales, an immigration attorney in Orange, Calif., who represented several men swept up in ICE raids over drunk driving charges from the mid-1990s. Another client was arrested by ICE agents at his home in 2015 over a petty-theft conviction from the early 1990s. Such belated enforcement is often a shock for immigrants who had moved on with their lives, had children or gotten married. “They thought they had already served whatever punishment through the criminal justice system, and it’s over.”

 

And share John Oliver videos

I don't have a serious answer

 

I'll take a page out of Trump's book

The best way to fix the country under Trump's control is to not let him get in control in the first place.

 

Imo violent revolution

 

Share Buzzfeed's "17 Epically Woke Taylor Swift Gifs About How Trump Is Like King Joffrey"

 

A picture of Louis CK with meme generator text

 

Hillary Clinton could really use strong unions right about now

 

I would assume that having a President Trump would probably lead the country to realize what a huge mistake it made by allowing someone who is thoroughly inexperienced and unfit to lead our country. Once this happens I could definitely see the country as a majority moving more to the left in general. I also think that actually get dems/liberals to show up to vote in midterm elections after 2 years.

I also think that having Trump as president could cause the republican party to split into 2, the Alt-Right and the Moderate Republicans. I think this could happen because after Trump wins that would justify the views of the Alt Right making them more vocal and probably worse(if that's possible), and the moderates who are only really supporting Trump quietly because they can't support Hillary with out alienating their base for their own re-election or future republican party financial support for campaigns.

Having a system with the Alt-Right, Moderates Reps could give the Dems a chance to pull to the left and actually be a liberal party instead of the left leaning center that we have now.

 

A friend of mine asked a similar question: if Trump is a fascist, if he really is evil and destructive and will fundamentally transform society in a horrible way, what does it mean that Clinton said she'd accept the outcome? She's cool with fascism?

 

this doesn't answer my question at all, unless the idea is that the deaths of minorities that we are constantly being warned about happening under a trump presidency is more or less fine? everyone seems so horrified about what will happen to non-white people under his regime that i assumed the response would be to prevent those events once he is elected, presumably by physical resistance.

 

yeah exactly. is democratically electing a fascist a legitimate outcome? if he is really that distasteful, shouldn't the answer be to prevent his abuse of power and crimes against humanity? or do we allow him to continue for two years until we can vote in midterm elections and *maybe* change things? how does that make sense?

 

Clinton has never called Trump a fascist.

 

no one said she did.

 

Things move fairly slowly at the federal level, yeah? At least in terms of new initiatives. I think that was by design.

 

Accepting of the outcome bit is just playing politics, gotta look respectable and level headed and such

 

Then why are you arguing about her saying she'd support the outcome of a democratic election? Of course she's going to say that.

 

we have allocated increasing amounts of power to the executive over the last seven decades. unilateral declarations of war without congressional approval, for instance, is something that is not supposed to be possible, yet the last formal declaration was WW2. executive orders are also increasingly utilized to bypass certain formalities. the president has an enormous amount of power even without those relatively recent additions.

 

She said she would accept the outcome if he won? The idea Dom was asking was more about her supporters. Like, for instance, if someone here who supports Hillary believes Trump is a fascist, and she said on Monday that she would support his election, then that means that same Clinton supporter believes she would support the outcome of a fascist being elected.

 

do you think she wouldn't accept it then?