gattsuru
8hr ago
When Dems lost 2024 they had a notable period of reflection where new ideas were more accepted.
The left broadly owned up to screwing up over Biden's age.
gattsuru
8hr ago
And you've demonstrated that you just don't want to engage. But hey, I'm sure calling people cultists up and down will really change minds.
Just in an more interesting way than I hope you intend.
EDIT: and you've done a respond-and-block. Grats.
gattsuru
10hr ago
Note that the specific types of legal challenges we're talking about are mostly a Biden-era thing. Bush and Clinton were before my time so there may have been something there that I'm unaware of, but during Obama's tenure there wasn't really any serious challenges in the vein of "hey can you enforce like any immigration restrictions at all?" The major Republican legal challenge that I remember was against DAPA, which functionally would have led to Obama not enforcing immigration laws on a certain category of people, but Obama lost and DAPA died.
Not quite. The case around DAPA focused on whether the memo followed the APA. SCOTUS left a preliminary injunction (due to a tie vote!) about the DAPA memo itself, but the case was never processed on its merits, and eventually mooted rather than actually requiring the administration follow the law, and that only because Trump won the election literally within months.
There were several other major cases, such as whether states could refuse to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants covered under DAPA/DACA/DREAM. Oh, and that little thing called DACA? Maybe you might have heard of it? Big thing that Trump couldn't end it.
During that time we were still in the era where Presidents followed the orders of courts without additional enforcement needed from plaintiffs alleging harms, so when the courts ruled against DAPA that was functionally the end of the conversation.
... the Obama administration issues thousands of work permits under DAPA after the Fifth Circuit injunction, and then said oops. A further hundred thousand reprieves were granted after the Obama administration swore before the court and in written submissions that they would not act on the memo while the court was ruling on the preliminary injunction to start with. During appeals the Obama administration held that it could offer whatever individualized discretion it wanted, so long as no one made those decisions because of the DAPA rule. Nor was this problem specific to DAPA. The Obama admin repeatedly refused to follow both statutory requirements and court orders mandating notice to a state for settling refugees, up to and including directing state charities to not tell state authorities.
When Congress couples “shall” with a detailed statutory scheme that leaves no gap for agency choice, the courts have consistently treated those duties as legally enforceable, and even gone so far as to vacate rules and enjoin the Executive when it violated them.
Show me an example, in this or a related context. Your entire argument rests on this, you're repeatedly drawn back to this complete bullshit well, and you can't even deflect well.
((I mean, the first one's somewhere between misleading an false; SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of the immigration restrictionist position in DAPA, it was a tie that always leads to the lower court action holding, and a simple google search on the citation would have shown that! If you mean to say that some courts might, well...))
Did you notice that you gave a three-point bulleted list, and two of them have case citations, and one of them doesn't, and the last one is the only bit that fucking matters? Do you notice that I provided an exact quote from a majority SCOTUS opinion holding that the thing you're asking for would be either an unreviewable political question or unconstitutional?
Note that I draw a pretty strict line between talking about public figures + political movements generally, and talking about people participating in the conversation right now.
Hm...
The conversation you linked where I posted that was a particular case where they functionally said "I think you're meaning to say , but you actually sound like , and with that in mind can you make points to clarify", where I replied with "well, I think you guys sound like , and with that in mind can you make points to clarify".
There is a contradiction, here. What, exactly, do you think the difference between "people participating in the conversation right now" are, and what "you guys sound like" is?
I wouldn't have started down that line of my own volition, but I found what they said had some usefulness so I gave them my own perspective.
Oh, well, if it's okay to be rude as long as someone else's behavior indicates some usefulness... that'd be a fun rule to run! Invite me.
gattsuru
14hr ago
There was also, as a lower-stakes and economics-only version, the recent Biden admin call for an unrealized capital gains tax -- which quite a lot of supposedly The Good Ones were willing to bend over backwards to present misleading or outright false arguments for, and never engage with criticisms. To be fair, it wasn't successfully enacted; to be less charitable, that was not for any mainstream progressive pushback.
I'd think claims made without evidence can be dismissed without them, too, but okay, then:
Trivially, no, the Democratic party did not have some notable period of introspection where new ideas were more accepted or old ones reviewed. The few who actually tried were beaten down far faster than even the most anti-Trump parts of the right ever were; most just made mouth noises, and didn't even do that consistently. TheAntipopulist will not be updating his priors when his specific examples of "leftist"s changing their position on something turns out to just be them "suggesting it is bad to increase the salience of immigration" (aka, trying to massage media focus).
Trivially, no, the Left did not own up to screwing up over Biden's age. Alex Thompson wrote a book about it... with Jake Tapper and the summary he presented was that "Every White House is capable of deception", not "maybe I shouldn't have called everyone who had eyes a conspiracy theorist". Jen Psaki has her own show, and it's not titled "You Fucked Up, You Trusted Me". KelseyTUOC proposed expelling from the Democratic party everyone involved in concealing Biden's decline... while highlighting Yglesias as a great example of the New Democrats, who happened to be one of those people doing exactly that. People owned up to Biden (and Harris) losing, and that only to the extent that they're literally this next week getting feted. No one's taking responsibility; they're shuffling blame.
Nor anything else. Everyone's happy to pretend that they were always right: Ezra Klein will tell us that he warned that Russiagate was a fraud, KelseyTUOC that she wasn't calling Kavanaugh a sexual assaulter, ProPublica's writers insist that they're happy to talk about a story with interested polite people, but there's a simple problem that none of these things are true. As an industry and as a political party, the admission of even the clearest error is harder than pulling viper's teeth or hen's teeth.
But he's not going to engage with me, he's not going to engage with you, he's sure as hell not going to admit he's wrong, and certainly he's not going to live up to his standards.
I'm not talking to him so much as about him, given that he's blocked me. But now that he's done that, it's worth noticing how often his points, to the extent he makes any rather than just waves his hands and demands we believe whatever he makes up without foundation, are laughable.
More options
Context Copy link