midterms-discussions
Discord ID: 399676530394923010
112,096 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 168/449
| Next
So when is the AZ election happening?
And are we doing a VC like last time?
That PA chat was the stuff of legend <:drewmiller:423319800215764993>
In a week
N O I C E
REPORT: Mueller Prepares To End Russia Probe Without Interviewing President Trump
So this Russian Collusion bullshit is over?
soon it seems
horey shet
@R E P T I L E AZ-08 is happening next Tuesday, April 24
Thanks
@Pielover19 apparently there were times Emerson wayyyy overestimated for the Republicans (like Moore) and other times where they overestimated for the Democrats
tread with caution regardless
be weary of an incoming trend
You reading from a fortune cookie?
Democrats at a +6 lead in the generic ballot
if the election were held today, they would not be able to retake Congress
Yeah, with Dems at only +6 I think the Arizona seat is gonna go in our direction.
That poll is a serious outliner, and it would actually be MORE accurate to use landlines in this specific district, which they probably didn't do.
Is enthusiasm accounted for when we talk generic ballot btw because these have been just ungodly results we have been getting for the last few months.
I believe so
most of these polls take into account whether voters intend to vote or not
and how likely they are to (certain to vote, likely to vote, etc)
and Nate Silver's algorithm adjusts for this
Umm
Wait I just read the article, it doesn't seem too significant, the US controls the gas and oil fields whoopty do, big deal. Syria is still allowed to use them
Hi everyone
Hi
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
>yfw
@Deleted User fancy seeing you here
Holy crap those optics.
*rubs hands*
This is the best possible thing that could happen for Trump's PR.
Why do people still believes the lies about the tax cut?
@FLanon These are too many retirements...No way Democrats don't take the House...
@๐Boo-ton๐ nope
**WTF**
**SUPREME COURT RESTRICTS DEPORTATION OF CRIMINAL ALIENS**
**Supreme Court invalidates part of federal law requiring mandatory deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes. For first time, Justice Neil Gorsuch joins with more liberal Justices to produce 5-4 majority!!!**
@FLanon **THIS IS A DISASTER AREA**
is this going to be yet another non-problem like the unarmed National Guard thing
Depends on what you call a "non-problem"
It isn't really a bad ruling legally
ARE YOU KIDDING
But it's a bad ruling for us
>The Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration a loss on immigration โ and Gorsuch was the tiebreaking vote
>The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him. The government argued among other things that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.
>The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn't decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.
>The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.
lol a fellow flip
so apparently he isn't being deported because the charge is merely burglary
probably one of those wannabe black guys
@Deleted User what happened to Cake Master Shop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission?
Did I miss the ruling or are they still talking?
dunno
Cake Master Shop ?
The one guy
Was like Piece Master Cake shopcor something
The one with the gays demanding you to give them shot
Shit*
Masterpiece Cake Shop
vs Colorado CRC
The ruling isn't out yet.
But that's the really important one, and Gorsuch looks like he's reliable there.
It's been like 5 months since they've heard the arguments though
Are they looking for precedents maybe?
No, they'll probably have it in their summer opinions.
>mfw my daughter was non violently raped and murdered by a based brown man
>its okay because we don't know the definition of "violence".
>please convene a group of Jewish activist organizations to write a 10,000 page statute on the definition of "violent crime" please
>BASED GORSUCH PEDE FTW
I'm telling you, brown immigrants will be voting Republican some day. You just watch!!
but it's clear that rape and murder is violent
and if they tried to use the excuse that it requires power+privilege it would simply backfire on them
Burglary is vague, come on.
also this is only for legal immigrants
Despite being in effect in some way since colonial times, Gorsuch thinks that A) a foreign national doesn't know committing 2 burglaries could get him deported B) he has such a right to know and C) contra settled law, deportation is a punishment and not extension of sovereignty
The precedent this will create for immigration lawyers, even for illegal aliens, will be enormous.
F America
"You mean he interpreted the law and not side with politics ? You mean he did what he was supposed to do ?"
~ anon on /pol/
But this is not the law
it is
Our statutes require executive officials to deport anyone convicted of โan aggravated felony.โ Immigration law defines an aggravated felony very broadly and open-ended, as a โcrime of violence.โ 18 U.S.C. ยง16(b) defines a โcrime of violenceโ to include โany โฆ offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in course of committing the offense.โ
when it's that vague, it's congress' job, not the SC
Thomas: "The Courtโs decision today is triply flawed. It unnecesยญsarily extends our incorrect decision in Johnson. It uses a constitutional doctrine with dubious origins to invalidate yet another statute (while calling into question countless more)."
"And it does all this in the name of a statutory interpretation that we should have discarded long ago."
God bless this man for blocking amnesty legislation since 2014
you should spend more time praising positive outcomes than whining about non-issues
>non-issues
>lower courts and immigration lawyers now have justification for not deporting criminal immigrants
if they commit a violent crime it's still justified
We've had the majority of the Republican-appointed SCOTUS rule that "social sharing of marijuana" is not a mandatory deportation offense.
@Deleted User Wait are you Filipino?
Anyways America does have a problem of corrupting pinoys into discount blacks.
JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
"Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored
opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crownโs abuse of โpretendedโ crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. Todayโs vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the sameโby leaving the people in the dark
about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine
that the ordinary case of the alienโs crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The lawโs silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more."
@๐Boo-ton๐ @FLanon
FLanon is right, he's just a complete originalist
He's an Asian, so of course he's going to side with other Asians breaking into the country
There's his reasoning for not joining, but concurring^
He didn't betray anyone, he was just a complete strict constitutionalist. Though I still disagree, I think Thomas is right.
Of course Thomas was right
What you don't like Thomas?
Him and Scalia were best friends, and Scalia was the best
Huh?
Oh I thought you were mimicking me and being sarcastic
"Oh COURSE Thomas is right."
No I was agreeing with you
shocker, I know
@FLanon @zakattack04
Can we all agree this is so, _so_ tiring?
Definitely
He should really chill out on the "LOOK LOOK AT THE RASMUSSEN APPROVAL RATINGS"
It just looks so vain
Inbox from OH-SEN: "Conservative Outsider Mike Gibbons to Announce Plan for Mexico to Pay for Border Wall"
<@&414475903410896898> VOTE GIBBONS!
I mean I feel bad for the guy
All he hears is negative stuff all day
More than any of us could imagine handling
So I understand why he does ot
It*
But it isn't the best idea
I don't think Ohioans care about immigration @๐Boo-ton๐
I think they care much more about the economy since they're a rust belt state
So you should run a senator with more along those lines
@zakattack04 We do have illegal spics here
I don't care, either they nominate a immigration hawk or the state can go blue for all I care
...
You should darn well care
No point in having a Republican Congress if none of the Republicans are immigration hawks
Everyone should care about immigration to the US. Our immigration system is flawed beyond repair.
#VoteGibbons
Gibbons is a Republican.....
I know
Why shouldn't we have a Republican controlled congress then?
What I'm saying is if Renacci wins the nomination, let the state go blue
NO!
we want Gibbons, not Renacci
Either way, I am voting Republican.
I swear I want to mute you rn
The last the Democrats ended up controlling Congress, I lost my healthcare.
I would rather a third party before Democrats.
Fair
But vote Gibbons in the primary then
I was planning too...
Excellent
Then vote him in the primaries
Maybe pay attention to the <#399761047348707340> room...
If he looses that doesn't mean vote blue
^
I don't know
If Renacci loses,
it'll send a message that only immigration hawks can win
I mean that may be BM logic but it isn't normal person logic
Also Senator Brown is a prime target for Trump's career politician purge as he has been in some form of Public office since the 1970's.
That's probably why CA is so darn blue, y'all don't win your favorite candidates in the primaries and vote blue
That's not true
CA is blue because of Hispanics
Y'all aren't helping
Even if Recnacci gets nomination (it will be a close one), one thing Renacci has over Brown is that the fact he hasn't been in public office for as long as Brown has.
CA is blue for a number of reasons.
Renacci seems looks scuzzy
You have the Bay Area which has taxed its self to death.
I don't like the way he looks
Ok and?
like a Italian mobster-type
If I don't like how he looks, votes won't either
looks matter
I can't comprehend your logic anymore.
it's true
voters care about physical characteristics of candidates
You are beyond retarded.
If this is the way all of CA republicans act
Your state is set to be blue for all eternity
Seriously how do you still have the position you do if all you do is whine about shit and tease about a "Blue storm"
Yes there's crap immigration
But y'all aren't helping by wanting to and probably voting blue
@Ghawk you're stupid
Who the fuck cares?
studies show voters care about physical appearance
Honestly who the fuck cares?
True
minus policy issues,
voters always pick the more attractive candidate
But that's not going to make a big enough difference to matter
you might not care,
but a lot of Ohio voters do
No, I truly don't vote for a candidate based on looks alone.
_you_ don't
I look at what the candidate wants.
_you_ might
I am about ready to mute you.
You deserve your roll of head Autist.
ignoring polls, data, studies and surveys is never useful
Go vote in the poll
facts matter
Trump still won
@๐Boo-ton๐ Because polling data was putting Clinton at a high chance of winning.
Polling must be everything.
His polls said republicans would never take the government again
We took all of them
Clinton won the popular vote,
I don't care
>the popular vote matters
i'm not saying it does
but the demographics will never allow for it again
That is what you are implying when you pull the "she won the popular vote" card.
unless you get the White vote up to 64%
no
the polls indicated she'd win the popular vote by around the same margin as she did
But they said she'd win all together
right
They said dems would storm congress
Neither happened
the polls failed to take into account the third party vote and turnout levels
So the polls are WRONG
if non-White voters went out like they did in 2012, she'd have won
The polls were WRONG
they were wrong in part
DO NOT rely on polls
They aren't always accurate
pollsters failed to include a "how likely are you to go out and vote" question
to model turnout
they should've also include a third party option
If a poll says dems win Ohio by 0.01% you're like
SAY IT WITH ME
BLUE OHIO
a lot of polls should've also included a third party option
So they were WRONG
they were right in some ways, wrong in others
let's say,
mostly wrong
No, WRONG
They were wrong
Sure
Your beloved polls were wrong
Now stop being so pessimistic
I'll try to be
If we win AZ-08 by 10 points or more, I'll feel better
I don't care if they win by 0.01 points
It's still a win
if there is a swing away from Republicans, it's a pyrrhic win
@FLanon you know this is true
So try to fix it and make it better
Don't be like aww crap we lost, the country is screwed, we're all gonna die, we've all gone blue, it's all over
That doesn't help it just makes people mad
What
They haven't even voted yet
@ThatRightWingFish It's a disaster
@Marini that's why it matters to vote Gibbons
No that's not why
We could have a 100% all republican house and senate pass all the bills and they can still be overturned
That's why Mr President needs to pick better Supreme Court candidates
yep, Gorsuch was a mistake
112,096 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 168/449
| Next