2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 6K
  • Views: 183K
  • Politics 
Back in 1942, while we were fighting wars on two fronts, they managed to round up 120K people and put them in detention camps. Removing a million would be child's play with military involvement and indiscriminate detention policies greenlighted by the Supreme Court. Here are some issues to ponder:

1. There are no good remedies for citizens who are unlawfully detained. Kash Patel can wink wink tell his stormtroopers to round up anyone who looks Hispanic and take them to a sorting facility. Anyone who can prove their are a citizen can be released upon proof. So the citizens can be rounded up and then released. But what are the remedies? There are none, not any more.

It used to be that if federal agents violated your constitutional rights, you could sue them in what is known as a Bivins action. The Supreme Court has been narrowing Bivins to the point where it is barely a thing at all, and at the first opportunity presented, they will overrule it. So the detailed Latinos can't sue the officers. If they sue the department, the department will say, "it's just bad apple agents." They might win in court eventually. but it will take a long time and by then the detention/internment/concentration camps will be full. And at most, the government will have to pay damages, which Trump doesn't care about in the slightest.

2. It also used to be that a judge could issue a nationwide order to stop this type of shit. But the right-wingers have been abusing nationwide injunctions to the point where the Supreme Court is basically staying all of them. So there could be some judges in California who would put a stop to this, but their injunctions would only be valid in their districts. There is no way an injunction against this thing would be upheld in the Fifth Circuit, which is Texas, LA and Mississippi. You can round up a lot of people in those areas. I also think the newly radicalized 8th would not consider an injunction, and that's AR, MO, IA and I don't remember where MN or KS/NE are.

3. Trump will declare a national emergency and use the military, for logistical support if nothing else. The Supreme Court let him declare a national emergency to build the wall with funds allocated to the Defense Department. Nothing has changed on the national emergency front. I see no reason why the Supreme Court would change its tune now. And if there are any problems, the Republican Congress will pass a law to allow the military to be involved in deportation actions. There is no constitutional prohibition on the use of the military. It's just a statute.

4. If the courts try to stop it, Kash Patel will largely ignore them. He'll make token gestures at ending the "worst abuses" of the program while maintaining the programs. Will the threat of contempt stop his department? No, it will not. First, Trump can pardon everyone involved. Second, the right-wingers have already shown a willingness to lie and deceive courts. John Gore lied his ass off in the case challenging Trump's census bureau hijinks. He did so knowing that he could be subject to any number of sanctions. He was caught. Nothing happened to him, and again, Trump can pardon.

Well, surely if an attorney were to disgrace himself that way, there would be consequences, right? John Gore is now a partner at Jones Day. He was, to my knowledge, not a partner before he started working for Trump. He was actually rewarded by the right-wing legal machine for doing what he did.

5. If Trump is serious about rounding up millions of people, he could do it and it wouldn't be all that challenging. And while I actually doubt that Trump cares enough to follow through, his underlings absolutely do care and will take it on themselves. Kash Patel and Stephen Miller, for sure. The AG will be a MAGA loyalist and he too will probably be a true believer.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen, but your optimism that it can't is misplaced, imo.
I have a response here, but Geister is right that this isn't the thread for it. Let me just briefly say that I'm not discounting the idea that a second Trump admin can and will try some fascist crap - and I think we'll see less of the bumbling Three Stooges routine we got from the first couple years, especially, of his first admin - but for a variety of reasons I think we're highly unlikely to see right-wing repression of the scale you've suggested within the next 4 years.
 
I have a response here, but Geister is right that this isn't the thread for it. Let me just briefly say that I'm not discounting the idea that a second Trump admin can and will try some fascist crap - and I think we'll see less of the bumbling Three Stooges routine we got from the first couple years, especially, of his first admin - but for a variety of reasons I think we're highly unlikely to see right-wing repression of the scale you've suggested within the next 4 years.
I tend to agree with you. I also sincerely hope we never need to find out.
 
I know this is partly shorthand, and probably partly accurate. But I'm not sure it's quite adequate to describe MAGA -- in part, because in cults, it's usually the cult leader who compares himself to God or the like. But with MAGA, that stuff is coming from the bottom. Trump retweets it because he loves it, but until very recently, he wasn't exactly selling himself as the God-King. I don't know; maybe all his bluster about his talents and abilities functions that way. I'm no expert on cults.

But what I see with this nonsense about Trump being "honest" or "principled" or "patriotic" is a form of buyer's remorse in denial. Trump's supporters went all in on Trump, at times with fever pitch. Then he turned out to be exactly what liberals said he was. MAGA turned out to be what we said it was. They exposed themselves. So they desperately need to find something could about him to justify their continuing support. The adjectives that are most hilariously attached to him all address his inner motivations. I find that telling. It allows them to segment the Trump they see, from the Trump they hope for. None of his supporters call him a great administrator; that's farcical on its face. They don't brag about all the stuff he did for them, and they don't require him to even remotely suggest anything tangible he will do for them in the future. Rather, they focus on the qualities that allow them to fashion him into someone worthy of their support, no matter how bad he is.

Because the reality is that most MAGAs actually like all his "mean tweets." When they say, "I wish he'd tweet less," they aren't being honest with themselves. That's what they like, and they backfill the rest. When they say that his tweeting or statements are a problem, what they mean is that it becomes more difficult for them to keep up the fiction that he's not what liberals say he is.
 
I know this is partly shorthand, and probably partly accurate. But I'm not sure it's quite adequate to describe MAGA -- in part, because in cults, it's usually the cult leader who compares himself to God or the like. But with MAGA, that stuff is coming from the bottom. Trump retweets it because he loves it, but until very recently, he wasn't exactly selling himself as the God-King. I don't know; maybe all his bluster about his talents and abilities functions that way. I'm no expert on cults.

But what I see with this nonsense about Trump being "honest" or "principled" or "patriotic" is a form of buyer's remorse in denial. Trump's supporters went all in on Trump, at times with fever pitch. Then he turned out to be exactly what liberals said he was. MAGA turned out to be what we said it was. They exposed themselves. So they desperately need to find something could about him to justify their continuing support. The adjectives that are most hilariously attached to him all address his inner motivations. I find that telling. It allows them to segment the Trump they see, from the Trump they hope for. None of his supporters call him a great administrator; that's farcical on its face. They don't brag about all the stuff he did for them, and they don't require him to even remotely suggest anything tangible he will do for them in the future. Rather, they focus on the qualities that allow them to fashion him into someone worthy of their support, no matter how bad he is.

Because the reality is that most MAGAs actually like all his "mean tweets." When they say, "I wish he'd tweet less," they aren't being honest with themselves. That's what they like, and they backfill the rest. When they say that his tweeting or statements are a problem, what they mean is that it becomes more difficult for them to keep up the fiction that he's not what liberals say he is.
He has ALWAYS professed himself as a prophet of sorts - that he's the ONLY one who can do X Y Z
 
Back
Top