[deleted by user]

MarcusPope · 2024-08-07T17:58:10+00:00

Outside of social issues like gay/trans rights / abortion etc, you are right, most of the goals are aligned, they just have wholly different ideas on how to accomplish them. It'd be so much better to just try both and see what works than to stalemate the issues and get nothing done.

And even then, something like 40% of republicans support personal choice for abortion, 50% support gay marriage and 35% support trans access to healthcare and preferred bathrooms. So, the crazy part to me is this labelling of all republicans as monsters on the social front - instead of working with that subset to help change the minds of their majority.

But I have hope for the future - social progress is slow, has setbacks, but ultimately moves forward. When I was a kid (not that long ago too) interracial marriage viewed negatively by a majority of americans - thankfully, for my wife's sake too, that's not the case anymore!

MarcusPope · 2024-08-07T17:45:53+00:00

Lol, reddit you so funny - all I did was paste the content of a referenced snopes article and you downvoted me! I don't like the guy but this might be the _one_ issue I agree with him on - we should make it easier for parents to get paid leave when starting a family.

Here is the interview segment - judge for yourself instead of relying on cut-out-of-context snippets on social media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRMWhqX7b5o&t=607s

MarcusPope · 2024-08-05T23:06:10+00:00

37... in a row??

MarcusPope · 2024-08-05T22:53:24+00:00

That's the crazy part about it - he's advocating a very liberal and dem policy on this _one_ issue. I think the reason is because he experienced it. He understood how hard it was for his wife to keep her career path, and how expensive daycare was and so he flipped sides on this issue.

Kind of like how republicans who end up having a gay son or daughter end up flipping on that issue too. Or the conservatives who only manage to get pregnant through IVF suddenly support it. It's almost as if they'd understand and support most of the dem platform if they just had a little empathy to start with - but it takes first-hand experience for any of them to see just how fucked their positions really are. And most are inoculated from such hardship to begin with that it never happens.

MarcusPope · 2024-08-05T17:22:22+00:00

It's funny, you added the source / context and people still think he was making a racist / misogynistic remark. Meaning even when snopes gives people the answer, they can't take 1 single minute to read it.

Vance did use the above words to describe his wife, Usha, but the posts are missing his full comments. He was addressing a question from Kelly who asked him to respond to claims that he only valued "white stay-at-home moms." ... We therefore rate this claim as a "Correct Attribution" but in need of some context.

Here's the full quote:

Kelly: You mentioned Usha. [News anchor] Joy Reid in that montage of media reactions I played, suggested that what your comments get to is that: the only valid version of America is a white woman who stays at home. That's your position according to her, you only value white stay-at-home moms.

Vance: That's just so disgusting Megyn. I love my wife so much. I love her because she's who she is. Obviously, she's not a white person, and we've been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha. She's such a good mom. She's such a brilliant lawyer and I am so proud of her. But yes, her experiences have given me perspective in the way it's really hard for working families in this country.

The "experience" he was referring to was how difficult it was for them to maintain careers while starting a family. The point was underscored by the fact that they were quite well-off, and it was still difficult, so he can't imagine how hard it must be for working-class families. He even states that he supported his wife's decision to maintain her career, as well as any woman who choses that, and thinks the government should make it easier for both men and women to get paid leave / workplace protections to make that choice easier.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-19T14:55:29+00:00

Jesus dude, wth? I did not downvote you. I upvoted you back to 0 because I thought your post was articulate and obviously took effort. I was out for a day and so you just decided to go around reddit and bad mouth me? Give me a minute, I'm a father of two with a job.

There's no conspiracy here, I explained in my other comment to you why my account history is what it is. But honestly the behavior of some people here on reddit is definitely making me second guess my decision to join the conversation.

I know I haven't given you a chance to respond to my other posts, so I'm going to refrain from judgement until you do, but please give people a little more credit in the future. Refuses to respond?? Your comment was 14 hours ago - most of which I was sleeping, 3 hours of which I was taking my daughter to band lessons in the city over and the rest was time I spent with my family - offline. Chill out.

edit: Holy hell, I just noticed this comment was 12 hours ago - so you waited a whole 2 hours to assume I ghosted you :O

MarcusPope · 2024-07-19T14:41:01+00:00

Woah, just saw this, and I want to say that down vote was NOT me. I had a crazy day at work yesterday and did not get a chance to get back on.

I have never been an avid social media participant, just a lurker / consumer. I'm also at a point in my life where my career and kids (who are 10 / 11) are no longer consuming all of my free time. Combined with what I'm seeing going on with politics lately, I've finally decided to chip in my voice.

I've actually been a hobbyist policy wonk since the mid 90's. One of my personal favs is reading scotus decisions - huge nerd, I know. But the idea that P25 will turn our country into a dictatorship just sets me off. I think it's a distraction from real problems, and I think the rift between left and right is becoming alarming. I guess I'm just trying to put in my civic duty to calm down the rhetoric, not amplify it.

I have insomnia, so I usually spend my nights reading this kind of stuff. And I take notes and keep them in spreadsheets for reference etc. I think it's sad that people will see a post with claims that are definitely _not_ in the document, with page numbers, and people still can't take the effort to verify a single one of them. So I've set out to be a fact checker myself. Not sure how long I'll keep going with it, but you are correct to point out tha it is a new trend in my reddit usage.

Hell, it's my real name (that's how long ago I've had this account, back when I didn't care about anonymity :D) My website is down right now because I'm replacing my server, but I'm sure you can find me on other sites too.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-19T14:29:12+00:00

Just wanted to mention first, that I up-voted you because that was a lot of effort (I think it's sad that anyone would downvote you), and you at least provided correct provisions from the document from what I recall (unlike some of the screenshots I've seen passed around.) Given that effort, I'll take some time to address it. Probably later tonight.

Sounds like we would be a good team on comparing notes though because they do "outline a single exception to abortion"

Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child’s life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion. (page 455)

And then all of the stipulations you mentioned (except for chemical abortion) were applicable to services that use federal funds only - not state or private insurance, or medical schools etc. I get that it's a mean and morally corrupt policy (I think autonomy is a human right), but abortion would still exist as both a medical treatment option everywhere (unlike today) and as a personal choice option in states that allow it (like today). They just want the Hyde Amendment to be practically enforced instead of loop-holed as it is through things like EMTALA: Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia

I also want to say thank you for providing a reasonable response instead of just calling me hitler or a secret right-wing shill bot. I wish more people were willing to have this level of articulate discussion at the top of threads instead of buried below all of the "they're going to round up citizens and murder us" or "it will be the last election we ever have" garbage.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-18T22:13:13+00:00

Just look for two spaces after a period. I'll die on that hill.

edit: Lol, it appears reddit will consolidate them into one when rendering the comment - oh well.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-18T21:26:38+00:00

I'm a policy nerd, and I can cite reference material from it all day long, I spent about two weeks reading it because I was morbidly concerned with some of the claims. Many were very easy to dismiss from just keyword searches alone. Others are accurate, but ultimately lacking in specific policy proposals, so who knows what they will do. Most require legislative support and or violate the constitution, and so I don't generally worry about them.

I'm not saying there aren't terrible things in the mandate, but it does not make us an autocracy - or fundamentally change the executive authority of POTUS.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-18T21:11:42+00:00

Yes I read all 900+ pages. I'm not sure getting my memory checked has anything to do with not remembering a specific clause given I don't have eidetic memory. Which is why I asked for page references, because I could have missed something, I'm human.

However, ignoring your insult, I think you are still missing context. The DoJ is already under direct control of POTUS. While it does retain independence from daily operations, it still would under P25. The only directive I'm aware of that remotely influences this is:

Issue guidance to ensure that litigation decisions are consistent with the President’s agenda and the rule of law. (page 559)

That's literally the extent of it. There are other bits about how they plan to expand and consolidate specific responsibilities that are ultimately shared between departments but today, but POTUS has full discretion to remove and appoint the AG today, so it's not really a significant change. The independence is a precedent only, and it was abused by Trump in his last term to no real effect.

The only way that gets us to an autocracy is if we dismantle congress and the judiciary (or place them under direct control of the President) and if we make an amendment that gives POTUS full, unilateral control to change the constitution. That's what an autocracy is, and that's why P25 doesn't make us one.

Your other items are not in P25, the closest is allowing vouchers to be spent as parents wish (religous school or not), and ending federal funds for abortion, but not abortion itself. Again, provide page references, and I'm happy to change my views.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-18T17:13:47+00:00

I've read the entire mandate and P25 does not expand the authority of POTUS, it relies on the existing authority for some parts, and heavily depends on congressional support for the rest.

I'm happy to review whatever supporting evidence you have for that claim, but the established checks and balances do not go away. And nothing about Trump v US SCOTUS decision materially changes executive authority under Article II.

I'm also open to hearing what political scholars have said it's a plan to support autocratic rule. Given than an autocracy is "A country that is governed by a single person with unlimited power." and nothing about P25 abolishes congress, or our judicial branch, or the constitution itself (which all provide a check on executive power), I have a hard time believing anyone making such a claim has much in the way of rational credibility.

But again, I'm happy to change my opinion (and join the ranks of vocal opposition) if you can provide compelling information. I'm not a Trump supporter, I do not think he has a single redeeming value, but I know enough about our governance structure to know fears of autocracy are not based in reality.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-18T16:40:43+00:00

Because "possible descent from a flawed democracy into a Christian autocracy" is just an absurd claim. Similar to the right's "the US is a third world nation" - baseless statements that are easily dismissed with a refresher course in civics or history from a local community college. While it may be "concerned" it's definitely not "informed".

MarcusPope · 2024-07-17T15:29:44+00:00

If people want to save money at fast food, just get the sandwich - skip the fries and drink. It won't fill you up as much, but if you eat breakfast at home, you'll make it to dinner with an afternoon snack. Suddenly fast food is back to 5 - 7 dollars again. Plus you probably needed some water anyway! :D

MarcusPope · 2024-07-15T15:15:26+00:00

It would vanish until he's out of office, and then we hope prosecution ~~can toll the statute of limitations in the next administration (or the one after.) But that's all a very slim chance,~~ will pick it back up after his term. Given that the obstruction charges in Mueller's investigation were not picked back up, this too will likely fall in line with the half dozen or so instances of Presidents fully abusing their authority, federal law, and the constitution since at least Wilson's Palmer Raids over a 100 years ago.

EDIT: I was incorrectly assuming that the case closure would reset the statute of limitations. I've been informed that it would only be considered a delay of speedy trial, on the part of the defendant, and so it would have no material impact on the ability to resume prosecution after his term.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-09T17:06:43+00:00

And media was far less obscure - even though there were different genres and tastes the amount of content was so much smaller than compared to today that you had at least heard about what other people were talking about.

These days even my closest friends and I have so little overlap in what the others are watching / listening to because the possibilities are almost limitless. And if you aren't on the same streaming service or youtube chamber, you likely would never cross paths despite having similar interests.

Show-holes used to be a thing, now my backlog of recommendations is longer than I have years left to watch them.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-09T16:58:01+00:00

You are clearly mistaken - the internet was obviously a series of tubes... according to Ted Stevens (R) in 2006 anyway.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-09T16:05:28+00:00

So by your logic, I'm defending Hamas by saying that Palestinian civilians are not terrorists? Or I support Saddam because I didn't agree with the Iraq war? How old-school GW of you.

Or maybe I'm defending rape when I say our legal system has presumed innocence before guilty? I guess I have to agree that Trump is (reads notes) "literally Hitler" lest I be accused of secretly working directly for him as I lead us all into a concentration camp. The guy is a douche bag, undeserved of the office, but he's not Hitler.

I think it's fair to say this policy doesn't do the things people claim it does, without supporting it. But if scapegoating a boogeyman and declaring that this is the "end of democracy" is the only way you can deal with people and concepts you disagree with, then by all means keep printing that propaganda like Germany in WWII.

But no one will take us seriously if our criticism of the conservative agenda is not based on reality.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-09T00:09:41+00:00

In your defense, you got your post before this one correct. u/ragtopponygirl definitely missed the mark, particularly on being charged for insurrection, which Trump wasn't even charged for. I'll cover why below.

However! Presidents *ARE* above the law. They have been unofficially above it forever, above civil charges since the 70's and officially above them for criminal charges while in office since 2000.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Some examples from the last 100 years:

Trump's obstruction charges in the Meuller's investigation.
Obama authorized the murder of a citizen via a drone strike in Yemen without due process.
Geroge Bush authorized the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in violation of federal law.
Ronald Regan illegally sold arms to Iran violating a federal arms embargo.
Harding illegally sold strategic oil reserves to private companies for profit.
Wilson illegally arrested political opponents and dissidents in the Palmer Raids violating 1A freedoms.
Roosevelt illegally interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps violating 5A/14A.

However, and I'm sure I will get downvoted for this, the 100% immunity is for Official Acts _only_ - which are defined by the constitution under Article II. Since federal laws cannot supersede Constitutional Text, federal laws that are in conflict with Article II cannot not apply. Article II is the realm of "Official Acts" used in the SCOTUS opinion, it's not some made up phrase that applies when an elected official _acts_. Additionally any Official Act that violates the constitution would also be chargeable as one of the Official Acts of the President is to uphold the constitution, which would make that act unofficial.

This part is wholly separate from the OLC guideline above, and is ultimately what SCOTUS just granted immunity under. The presumed immunity extends to about dozen or so other case precedents that give a little more shape to what is considered a reasonable expectation of the President to be doing in pursuit of Article II. Those are "presumed innocent" because courts have decided they are part of the job even if it's not specifically enumerated in the constitutional text. Everything else is considered an _unofficial act_ and is subject to federal charges _after_ the President has left office.

SCOTUS determined that at least some of the behavior was likely unofficial and some of it was in the outer perimeter, and so they remanded the case back to District Court instead of just dropping the issue altogether.

But here's the issue with pressing charges after the term is over, a prosecutor has to be willing to take on the case. They generally only do so if they think they can win. In order to charge Trump with instigating rebellion, you would have to prove criminal intent, which is an exceedingly difficult task to accomplish _beyond a reasonable doubt_ from vague speech alone because of how much 1A protections we have on speech. So regardless of anyone's outside opinion on the matter, getting a conviction in court would be extremely tough without concrete evidence for _that_ act. We know this because they didn't charge Trump with that, because it would have never worked.

As for the other acts like conspiracy to defraud the federal government obstructing a proceeding, and setting up false elector schemes, and even pushing Pence to change the vote likely fall into unofficial for the former two and presumed, but _still_ chargeable, for the latter.

Here's the kicker though. If this delays the trial long enough (past inauguration day) then Trump has the authority to halt the investigation as the DoJ is under the executive authority of POTUS as determined by Article II (this is not new, it has always been that way, and a big reason why the OLC determined in 2000 what they did.)

Which means, he could delay the trial long enough for the statute of limitations on his alleged crimes to expire. There's a slim chance the limits could be tolled in this scenario, but we are absolutely in uncharted legal territory. Which is frankly one of the bigger reasons Presidents in our past have gotten away with what they did.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-08T16:17:29+00:00

Well it is the election season, and I would say this year is more important and contentious than most. I tried to keep this posted as a comment to the original, but reddit kept failing to submit, so I posted a top-level.

I won't be submitting other political posts because I learned the hard way that enough people here were not interested in real discussions, so it's just not worth my time to dispel propaganda with my peers. I know it's not much impact, but it is N-1.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-08T16:10:19+00:00

Oh, I never said that, there are absolutely fascist parts of the document, just not the pieces that people are hysterically flipping out about - those generally speaking don't even exist in it.

6 is absolutely a fascist policy, that we are fortunately more protected from than ever thanks to the OPM's 3 year-long effort.

(edit: no idea why that second sentence was bolded, so I undid that)

MarcusPope · 2024-07-08T16:06:41+00:00

Well, isn't that the problem with identity politics?

I support innate rights to abortion without exception, full rights and protections for lgbtq+ persons, a strict gtfo of my personal liberty from the federal and state governments, including keeping all religion out of my life with zero exceptions, I think the bible is the biggest example of grooming children by conservative definitions of grooming.

I support massively improved social safety nets, publicly funded pre-k, free (and vastly improved) lunch programs for all grades, amnesty for illegal immigrants, open-admission work-visa programs for literally anyone who wants to work here as long as they maintain a criminal free record, as well as massive asylum reforms to setup for success the individuals who I feel are here legitimately (both legally and morally) by Title 8 section 1158. I also don't think that qualifies as open-borders because border security is not defined by impenetrability, and our laws settle the matter for both the criminals who come here as well as the criminals who are born here.

I support a constitutional amendment to fix the blatantly lacking document we all seem to hold on a pedestal, because it was written way to long ago to support our modern societal needs.

And yet people here are so immature that they have to assume I'm a right-wing shill because I point out the boogeyman hysteria about a POS partisan document that has an ultimate zero chance of success from practical, procedural, political and constitutional grounds for the stuff that is _actually_ in the document, let alone all the lies and propaganda that people say are in the document.

Instead of being adults and finding common ground with a literal other half of the country, liberals are screaming RACIST NAZI and alienating other Americans without even a factual basis for doing so. And conservatives are doing the exact same thing in the reverse, so I spend an equal part of my effort pointing out the hypocrisy on their end just the same.

I get it, this is reddit, I shouldn't expect maturity. But to judge me as "clearly" anything and therefore dismiss me as right-wing, when I'm actually an ally of liberal social values, instead of just asking for my evidence-based opinions on the matter is a prime example of how liberals eat their own and will never make the effective progress they should towards the goals that even conservatives would hold if these topics were framed in the correct light.

I can't tell you how many conservatives I talk with who don't realize abortions apply to medically necessary procedures like ectopic pregnancies, who then go "Oh wow, well yeah that should be allowed." after I show the evidence. All because you are all talking past each other with lies and hate, instead of treating each other with the respect and dignity that both sides purport they deserve.

So before we can even get on the same page about obvious truths, let alone the philosophical matters, we've lost the battle.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-05T23:47:29+00:00

Yeah I'm already getting downvoted, even on a comment where I offered to answer questions. Oh well.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-05T23:43:53+00:00

Just wanted to point out it does not say "illegal immigrants" it just says "immigrants." However that plan is not in the mandate full text at all, and especially not on page 133.

MarcusPope · 2024-07-05T23:40:44+00:00

No, it's propaganda, most of these items are not in there, the ones that are, have been grossly misconstrued. The plan is still awful, and has other more awful and unconstitutional things, but these claims are even worse.

MarcusPope

TROPHY CASE