Thats not an argument to get rid of the courts. Quite the opposite. Trump is trying to sideline them, but ultimately it will fail becausethe population wont accept it. The US isnt China or Russia, and Trump may have to learn that.
The population is accepting it right now. 40% of the people still approve of everything Trump is doing.
If you have 10 friends and you ask them what they want to eat for dinner and 6 say let’s go to a Mexican restaurant and 4 say let’s kill Bob and eat him, you still need to worry about your friend group.
Right this second ICE agents are killing people with impunity and police for the longest have had qualified immunity to kill people unjustly.
The country voted for this knowing exactly what they were going to get. Don’t believe the Michelle Obama “this is not who we are” this is who this country has always been
The country voted for it but it wasn't a rational choice. Half the country lives in insane false world, pushed by Fox news. But it's a near-majority every election.
There are so many rulings, just in the last 25 years even, where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that warrantless search is not okay. This one is very much in line with the topic, in fact.
Carpenter v. United States (2018)
This country has never been what you're saying. We have some over policing happening. That seems to come and go in every country and doesn't say anything by itself about what a county is about, especially where it's trending over a 25 year timeline in the opposite direction from what you're describing.
Let it go to court, at least, before you flip your lid and turn on your countrymen.
Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law.
The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over.
If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North.
The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know.
Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense.
Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.
The constitution literally said that slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person - the actual founding documents. How can you say this country wasn’t about slavery from the beginning?
I don't think you read my comment. I mentioned this exact thing.
The 3/5 vote was part of how the North protected from the South using greater numbers (voting in place of their slaves) to remove the expiration date that the North placed on slavery as a concession.
The North wanted to ensure that slaves would in fact be released as soon as possible, without losing the South as an ally against the impending invasion from England.
Had they not reduced the voting ability of the South, the South would have simply removed that expiration date and kept their slaves. (They kept them anyway, that's why the civil war happened.)
There are a lot of excuses being made to dispute the fact that this country literally has slavery built into its founding documents and let Jim Crow laws stand in a part of the country for almost a century later.
There was no “expiration date” in the constitution.
“Plessy vs Ferguson” was decided by the US Supreme Court after the Civil War which enshrined Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal”.
It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court outlawed bans on interracial marriage.
This country was built on racism and it was enshrined into law up to 6 years before I was born
In all fairness, my family had a house built here in 2016 and the only reason we sold in 2024 was to move to Florida. While my (stepson) was one of only 5 Black students in his high school, he never had any issues.
>There was no “expiration date” in the constitution.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (often called the Slave Trade Clause) prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to January 1, 1808. This effectively allowed the international slave trade to continue until that date, after which Congress could (and did) ban it.
Seems I need to reword my take, as this demands a bit more specificity, but the overall take remains unchanged. Had the 3/5 provision not been made, the South would have further prevented the North from enforcing a ban on slavery and inequality, which was already in place in the North, and in place federally with the "created equal" component in the Declaration, as was argued by founders in court cases.
We can't just ignore court documents and the Constitution itself, along with the Declaration. Not to mention the first draft of the Constitution which had a lot more provisions against slavery before the English forced then to take allies with the South or die. They had no choice but to agree to the South's terms and allow for the South's slaves, temporarily. A stark difference from the previous Constitution of the first Congress.
You can try to frame it however you like, but you can't hide the fact that the founders wrote that slavery is bad, and they don't want it in this country even before it was a country. And they subsequently fought to eliminate it as soon as the wars were over. Those documents remain, right in the face of your argument.
Sundown towns existing doesn't change that. There was no sundown country, just as this isn't a sex cult country, despite there being some law breaking Nexium participants setting up shop and torturing people. It happens, that doesn't mean we as a country yearn to have more racists walking around. In fact, I think if you read why Republicans voted Trump, it's because they perceive immigrants to be racist and they want to reduce the inflow of racist ideology and rape culture into the country. That's exactly the scare tactic that their advertising relies on. They believe they are the ones who aren't racist, just like Democrats.
(I hate both political parties equally by the way. I'm not sure if that's clear from my commentary. But I reject the South's view of history because I can read the damn court cases and see that it's a total fabrication. And I know that Democrats like to spread that version as justification for why black people need help, and I think they know full well that it's bullshit, but it convinces juries on rare occasion so they continue to use it.)
Again, this country has always been built on racism and inequality and was enshrined into the law in some shape or form until the 60s.
This is in no shape form or fashion a “I couldn’t get ahead because of my race” conversation.
I’ve had every door opened to me - private school, academic college scholarship, worked at startups, lifestyle companies, boring enterprise companies and BigTech less than 3 years ago and turned down another one because I refuse to ever go into an office or work for BigTech again.
I don't deny that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled to my liking in all cases.
I never opposed that fact, but I apologize if I gave that impression.
I think that overall, when you look at the trend over time and the majority of cases, overwhelmingly the legislature and the courts have sided with anti slavery, equality (not equity), and presented an image of freedom and justice.
Maybe you disagree, but to say that it was always the opposite, I just don't see that. There are just a handful of cases supporting that argument against a mountain of wins in the other direction.
All that is true so long as you don't zero in and focus only on the South which, as I said, isn't this country. It's a rightfully defeated one. I'm thankful for that, and I'd rather avoid acknowledging the false rhetoric of that evil empire that fell. I certainly don't identify with it, and I'm offended at the notion that this country is required to. Why should we be? We won.
And saying that the “Supreme Court didn’t always rule the way you like” is minimizing an entire race of people - including my still living parents having to grow up in schools that were underfunded but supposedly “separate but equal”, people getting hung if you looked at a White woman the wrong way and didn’t “know your place” or even marrying outside of your race was illegal until 1969. Not to mention colleges that ny parents weren’t allowed to go to, having to drink from “colored water fountains” - again the US Supreme Court said this was legal
So if you ignore half of the country that had segregation and the US Supreme Court that condoned it, everything is fine?
Not minimizing. Just acknowledging that this alone doesn't characterize the general take of the complete history of the country. It describes a nation divided on moral lines at best. Not all states participated in segregation and those states that didn't ultimately are those who won in the end. So to take that win away degrades the victory that your parents (probably) helped to win.
If this was condoned by the US Supreme Court explicitly, this was the law of the United States that anyone anywhere could be discriminated against based on the color of their skin.
The federal army - ie run by the US was officially segregated until 1948 but it really was through the late 50s.
If you want to go by just one SCOTUS ruling to make your argument then why shouldn't we go with just one to make mine? And for that matter the number of rulings that make my argument are many many more than those that make yours.
I'm familiar with this theory and on some issues maybe it's relevant but what I'm referring to here is that Democrats today still seem to be in agreement with Democrats of old on the topic of whether the founders meant to abolish slavery.
Republicans say they absolutely did, just as they always have.
Democrats say they absolutely didn't, just as they always have.
I would argue that realignment occurred geographically, not on the basis of morality. Under slavery, the southern states were rich and mostly Democrats, now the northern states are more largely rich and leaning Democrat. That's to be expected, I think, where the wealthy wouldn't enjoy the new found poverty of the southern states as they rebuilt after the war, and would take their ideals with them. But that's just my guess, I don't have any research to substantiate that. Maybe it's an interesting topic for research.
Similarly, the stance on issues of whether people are naturally born inferior and deserving of special treatment, good or bad, remains a largely Democrat ideology, just as it always has.
Republicans on the other hand argue that all man is created equal not equitable, and they used that rhetoric to free slaves, stop Jim Crow era horrors, etc. And they continue to use it to argue against race based government aid.
So on these specific topics, I don't see any realignment as objectively observed.
All of this was and is documented in many SCOTUS cases, old and new.
Are you claiming that the party alignment hasn't switched over time?
I expect that everyone would agree Alabama is a very conservative state. It was voted solid Democrat until the late 80s, at which point the state went republican along with any elected politicians that stayed in office.
If I'm not mistaken, Richard Shelby was elected as a democrat in the early or mid 80s before being the last elected official to switch to the republican party. He stayed in office for decades and had state university buildings named after him.
The voting opinions largely didn't change over that time, only the party name they were voting for.
On these two items mentioned, yes. Read carefully.
1. Whether or not race objectively determines inferiority.
2. Whether or not this country always supported slavery.
On these two items, opinions remain true to the original parties' opinions regardless of whether or not they swapped.
I'm not going to debate whether or not they swapped overall because that's entirely subjective regarding what constitutes a swap officially. That would be a waste of time. I'm a scientist, not a cheerleader. I frankly don't care outside of the two items relevant to the discussion. And in these two items they didn't swap.
Then why in 1896 did the Supreme Court uphold “Separate But Equal”?
The Republican President just said that Hatians are eating pets and starting a civil war in MN to get rid of brown people.
Not to mention how he is inviting White people only from South Africa to come over.
Lyndon Johnson - a Republican - said after the Civil Rights Act that “the Republicans have lost the South for two generations”.
But Southern Democrats were literally “Democrats in name only” with Zell Miller the current governor of GA at the time a Democrat speaking at and supporting the Republican President’s nominating convention
I don't see how any of these relate to what I was saying.
On the topics of race based inferiority as a biological construct, and on whether slavery was ever legal, the party alignment has never changed.
Democrats still argue that black people are inferior. What's changed is that now they want to help them because they are inferior whereas before they wanted to exclude them because they are inferior.
Republicans continue to argue that black people don't deserve any reparations or special treatment because they are not inferior.
The above take is based solely on what these people argue in court.
You don’t think that Republicans outright celebrating and defending Nazis and what Kirk said - and praised by Republicans is considering a race inferior?
I vehemently oppose Nazi anything. Also I think you've subscribed to a very biased view of Republicans that doesn't describe anyone I know. That said I'm not politically aligned with either she so my take shouldn't serve as a defense for anyone's view. But from outside the fishbowl I can't say I subscribe to this description.
It’s hard to believe that when you are repeating very common MAGA/republican talking points and digging in your heels calling into question political party realignment, a very established concept, to claim democrats are a pro-slavery party. That is a very striking claim from someone “outside the fishbowl.”
I didn't claim Democrats are pro slavery today. In the past they were. I gave very little opinion on the matter. I'm just pointing out that these talking points for both parties haven't changed.
So this doesn’t describe “anyone you know”, yet the official “Young Republicans” association is bragging about their support for Nazis with the Republican Vice President dismissing it and Republicans across the country deifying a dead racist podcaster? And the elected Republican President accused a whole group of people of “eating pets” - and Republicans still overwhelming support this. Yet “no one you know” is like this?
I don't see your point. I think you're trying to say you don't like Republicans, and I'm okay with that. Again, I don't have a horse in the race. I'm just pointing out some facts that disagree with the revisionist's history. It seems I may have upset you. I will disengage here.
It is a theory in the same way gravity is. Both parties have experienced both gradual and sudden, major shifts and realignments throughout history. Most of the dispute is where and when these changes occurred and what constitutes them exactly. The changes clearly occur, usually over several decades but sometimes more quickly.
I’m still curious what your response is to my Strom Thurman question. It illustrates the entire point and marks one of the most recent major party realignments in the US.
The same as gravity? I wouldn't go that far. Gravity can be measured repeatedly and no objections have even been made to its effect. The theory is sound because it accurately makes predictions about the universe.
Theory is just an explanation for what we observe and I think this theory explains some things better than others. The two items I listed are are clear contrast to the theory.
Let's say it's not a unified theory of American politics, at the least.
I'll edit here for Thurman, I have to go read... Back soon to update.
Edit: I wasn't and still am not familiar with Storm Thurman. From a brief skim of the Wikipedia page, I gather he was a political "spy" of sorts, working from the inside to further the opposing party's goals.
You may need to elaborate a bit for me to see the tie in.
This is going to sound harsh. But you really don’t have much understanding of American history either race. My still living parents grew up in the segregationist south. This isn’t ancient history.
I believe you, and that doesn't change my stance. The segregationist South doesn't represent this country. It represented the remains of a racist Confederacy that was destroyed, save for the ideology that persists in the hearts of those that choose to continue to deny what this country has always been about.
Do we include you in support of that ideology? I worry that you might be missing the irony of your argument.
> I gather he was a political "spy" of sorts, working from the inside to further the opposing party's goals.
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat who changed parties - swapped to a Republican - when democrats supported and pushed integration. It is surprising to see you repeating a fringe conspiracy explaining his racism having never heard of him only minutes prior. This is the man who yelled, “segregation now, segregation forever” on the senate floor during a 24hr+ filibuster attempting to thwart reintegration. There’s no secret here, he wasn’t a spy. He swapped to the party that cultivated “the southern strategy” on the heels of ending Jim Crow: the Republican Party. Any claim to “the party of Lincoln” was forfeited by that time.
You’ll never hear me call the Democrats “saints” but they were on the right side of history with that one and I hope we both can agree on that.
It's an interesting take. But as I keep pointing out in other comments, one example doesn't make for an argument against the trend.
If it did then this example would be all I need to make my point. Is it?
House of Representatives vote on civil rights act: Approximately 63% of Democrats (153 yes out of 244 total Democrat votes cast) and 80% of Republicans (136 yes out of 171 total Republican votes cast).
Senate: Approximately 69% of Democrats (46 yes out of 67 total Democrat votes cast) and 82% of Republicans (27 yes out of 33 total Republican votes cast).
Here again it appears that Republicans as a larger majority remained true to the traditional Republican push for equality (not equity).
What poll have you seen that asks people to approve of everything any president does?
I live in a very red part of the country, and in a very red, rural area that voted ~90% for Trump. I don't know anyone that is okay with everything he has done. Some take issue with Venezuela, some with the handling of the Epstein files or the federal budget. Some don't like sabre rattling over Greenland.
Most people I know that do vote Republican are one issue voters. At least here people voted because they always vote republican, support the second amendment, think the republicans actually want a balanced budget, or just hated Clinton/Biden. It isn't about supporting whatever Trump does, though I'm sure some small percentage does.
People regardless of party or region don't think critically often enough and can't set aside their own personal beliefs. We've made our country bipolar and we're seeing the repercussions. It isn't a problem with any one party or person, and the answer isn't to tear down the fundamentals of our system. We need to actually get back to the fundamentals because of late both parties have been going the way of socialism and authoritarianism.
Isn’t that agreeing with him? HN loves to make excuses for the voters. If killing someone isn’t too aggressive what is? Killing and eating his kids? They think that is fine
Let me be very clear: I think ICE is wildly out of bounds and killing/terrorizing people. I do not support them. I do not support the republican party or Trump. Quite the opposite.
All of that being said: that is how polling works. You are inferring too far beyond the actual question posed. For instance, somebody could think they are acting too aggressively, but completely agree with the final outcome/objective. Or somebody could disagree with the objective, but think that they’re not acting too aggressively because perhaps they’re sympathetic to LEO’s having to make snap judgments in the field (an excuse I do not agree with but many do).
I think the general sentiment that the question tells you something about how people support or don’t support ICE is valid, but the exact number and statement you’re throwing out cannot be assumed and is likely wrong, even if it’s maybe close. And that’s not even getting into how different people will have different ideas of what “too aggressive” even means.
59% think they’re being too aggressive, assuming the polling is decent quality, means you can credibly say 41% do not think ICE is being too aggressive.
I am talking about other people. I am talking about the statements you can make based off the polls. I don’t understand what the objection is here. I personally think ICE is terrible both in their mission and how they conduct it. I am against this.
I am not casting aspersions on you or anyone else I’ve been replying to here. I am saying that people - including Michelle “this isn’t who we are” Obama who excuse the voters who still support this have their heads in the sand.
