Senate The US Politics discussion

That's the problem with campaigning against something that, deep down, you have no real intention of getting rid of.

 

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that filming the police is protected by the First Amendment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

 

When I used to be a teacher, we had a similar thing at our school. We usually had about 15-20 different countries, and learning about all the different aspects of their culture was fascinating (plus the food was delicious ) (However, the saddest thing I ever saw was when a 10 year old girl drew a picture of her home country titled Afghanistan/Canada with the Afghanistan side showing dead people, bombs and buildings torn apart with hearts, rainbows and smiling people in Canada.) In my city, we also have a national holiday "Heritage Day" where pavilions from over 50 different countries will showcase their food/culture/dance. It's a great experience to celebrate the multiculturalism of our city.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/trump-lawyer-ukraine-peace-deal/index.html

This doesn't look good for Michael Cohen, who has repeatedly denied he discussed any kind of agreement with Russia.

 

Colmes (the old liberal counterweight on Hannity and Colmes) has passed away, 66 years old

Jaime Harrison drops out of the DNC race


Ted Cruz predicts the Supreme Court will have a new vacancy this summer... that's kind of dark, is the Zodiac Killer going to strike again, like father like son?
http://time.com/4680572/ted-cruz-supreme-court-vacancy/



ICE detains immigrant already in detention, to prevent her brain cancer surgery

Like I said before... ICE = Saturday Morning cartoon villains

 

Fixed that error in the story quote.

 

Ugh, Ghost. I know you live in a bubble that's enjoying the single life after its divorce from reality but ICE are acting on instructions at all times. When they were deporting like crazy for Obama or now, it's because the agency has, ironically, no agency and has ministerial (or whatever silly "unique" term you call it) direction to do so.

I know walking through the Dept. of Immigration carpark when I worked there you would see a lot of "say YES to refugee" bumper stickers, proving the politics of the front line officers may not align with the politics of the government issuing their orders.

I mean, you're about to have SecState and the NatSec Advisor go to Mexico as the deportation ramp up hits the news - the government is "talking tough" and acting stupidly. Unless you know for a fact every ICE officer in the US is racist and enjoys the orders they have, then your comments about them being cartoon villains is as disposable as any other insightful analysis you've offered up.

 

Appointment of civil servants to departments is not a head of government duty; must are ordinary citizens, randomly applying for positions and not aligned to the policy of the department.

 

Yeah, like when they detained the DREAMer protected by DACA with no criminal record. Or detaining the woman who went to the police to report domestic abuse. This isn't the first story like this in the past month.

Bureaucrats make mistakes.

And if these aren't mistakes, their policies need to change

Either way, they're resembling cartoon villains. In these incidents (I'm not saying everyone ever affiliated with them is a moustache-twirling villain).


That's my larger point, which you don't seem to comprehend.

So my question to you: do you think this woman in an illegal immigrant detention facility should be restricting from getting the brain cancer surgery she needs?

I know. I have a Master's Degree in Public Administration, and graduate certificate in human resources. My last couple jobs dealt with stuff similar to this.

Whatever is behind these incidents, whether it's bureaucrats making a mistake, or heartless policies, doesn't change my opinion of them.

 

Bannon talking today about the tasks of the Trump administration:

I kind of break it up into three verticals of three buckets. The first is kind of national security and sovereignty, and that's your intelligence, the Defense Department, Homeland Security.

The second line of work is what I refer to as economic nationalism, and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, Lighthizer at — at Trade, Peter Navarro, Stephen Miller, these people that are rethinking how we're gonna reconstruct the — our trade arrangements around the world.

The third, broadly, line of work is what is deconstruction of the administrative state.

There you have it, as if you didn't already know: protectionism, deregulation of business, dismantling of social welfare and hounding Muslims at home and across the globe.

 

Ghost

I get the point you're making, but it is quite absurd.

The mundane office worker, who answers the phone and does filling, isn't really responsible for government policy. Majority of civil servants are ordinary administrators, with no real influence.

 

Yes I fail to see what the point about an agency of the government having no discretion over the orders handed down by government Ministers you struggle with? Other than it fits your narrative to dig your heels in.

 

I'm not talking about the mundane office worker. I understand what you're saying.

I'm talking about the ICE officers who prevented this woman, already in detention, from getting brain surgery (or arrested the DACA-protected youth without a criminal record, or detaining the woman for reporting domestic abuse). And if they actually were following policies (which still doesn't completely excuse them), then the heads at ICE who wrote those regulations and have the power to change them.

This might not be the policy, but these officers' interpretation of it. And if it is the policy, that doesn't make it right.

So my question to you: do you think this woman in an illegal immigrant detention facility should be restricting from getting the brain cancer surgery she needs?

 

If the order has come from the top, i.e the government, then it has to be implemented. That's what a Minister or Secretary of State is there to do. Do not assume compliance means political agreement.

 

Jesus **** mate, stop. You're completely ignorant of what you're talking about. And moreso than usual.

The tone of enforcement is mandated. It's not like ICE were like giggling at their villainy. They were instructed to do a job by the government. If they're instructed to only police airports, they'll do it.

I genuinely hope with all my heart you never get anywhere near a position of policy. Your sheltered inexperience is not something that should ever influence the decisions of others.

 

I don't.

Like I said, I have experience in this area.

But when an order seems this immoral... like this example, denying potentially vital healthcare to someone with brain cancer... you don't need to follow it. You can refuse the order. Or report or try to persuade your supervisors. And if none of those work, you can quit.

"Just Following Orders" is not a valid moral excuse. I thought we all would agree with this by now.

No, this is even more into my area of expertise than usual.

See my response to Daniel above.

First, you don't know this came from above. Second, if it did, the supervisors who wrote this regulation definitely deserve the criticism. If they didn't think of this potential consequence, they should rectify it immediately. And "just following orders" is not a valid excuse either if these officers genuinely thought they were wrong.

 

It is the equivalent of people calling welfare officers "cruel and evil" for not giving benefits to anyone.

They don't write the rules, exemptions or even the Welfare Act. The staff have to carry out what the government wants; regardless if they agree with it or not. Some jobs are quite ******, but someone has to fill the position. Especially if you have bills to pay.

I have friends who work in the Job Centre in the UK and they dislike having to be strict on disability payments, but the targets at set by the Secretary of State. They have to stick to them.

 

I don't think this is morally equivalent to that example.

I know they don't write the rules (although, depending on the agency and where in the hierarchy they are, there is varying degree of wiggle-room).

And there are the choices I outlined in my last response to you.

 

I get the point. But what happens if someone goes down that route, but opts not to quit - are they still the villain, even though they tried to reverse a decision?

Actually, it is.

 

Man, if I looked for a job where everything I did fit with my moral compass, I wouldn't be able to find work. While I don't doubt the types who sign up to ICE in the first place are more likely to enjoy making immigrants' lives harder, we can't judge them for one incident alone.

 

Your area of expertise? I was a ****ing immigration officer you spanner. I've literally been accountable for the enforcement of a border security policy to the point of having a job that involved getting other countries to assist in implementing it. As in it is on my CV. As in I was paid to do this. As in we liaised often with your government because of shared concerns about porous Asian borders and the transit countries for illegal migration being used by terrorists among others.

You literally have no idea but march with ill-deserved and unearned confidence in the direction of prescription regardless.

 

Yeah, pretty much this.

If we based employment off a moral compass, our countries would be experiencing mass unemployment.

 

Anyone who isn't Ghost but is American, can you help me out here?

In Australia and the UK and I suspect Europe too, the public service typically votes for the left. They're heavily unionised - in Australia, it's the PSU (public sector union), and the UK it looks like PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union) and UNISON - despite above average pay with no linkage to performance, and atypically good working conditions.

Defence is usually the outlier, being a more conservative body.

Is this as true as can be expected in the US?

 

If they tried persuading and pressuring their supervisor, then up the chain, or leaking the story to the media to build pressure, and none of that worked, and can't get reassigned so they don't have to prevent people who need it from getting brain cancer, and are warned for refusing the order... then take a moral stand and quit if it really goes against your morals. This example would go against mine, I wouldn't want to think I'm in any way responsible for someone's death by refusing them healthcare treatment they could have had, and I would have tried everything I could to help her get it the proper way, appealing to everyone, before making that decision.

And there's a different between not having the funds to hand out benefits to everyone, at least there is a moral difference to me.

I know your former experience.

And my area of expertise is how public administration works in the United States, how human resources and ethical complaints to it works, etc.

In the past, I was a supervisor to a team of federal employees, I know about policy and the chain of command. I know how it works.

In another previous job, I was in charge of developing curriculum in all high schools in the school district when it comes to in-school support for planning for life after high school (whether college, career, apprenticeship, internship, etc.) and developed some policies for others in my organization.

In that job, my supervisor tried to force me to do something I considered contrary to my morals, to the point I wanted to quit. I tried to persuade her, appeal to her, pressure her. It didn't work. So I went over her head, compiled my report, talked to the higher-up's privately, building support and consensus, then brought them all together. The policy changed, my direct workplace supervisor was forced to accommodate that. And I chose not to renew my job there, because I know what kind of person she is. And I had it set up so if she tried something like that in the future, and someone else complained, she would be fired.

See above. I've lived it when I felt it was necessary. My father did too. You can't make a moral stand on everything, but sometimes, when it feels strongly to you, you have to.

 

So basically you were Jack Ryan in the movie version of Clear and Present Danger?

Amazing. Then what happened?