‘Apoplectic’ I guess.
And I suppose all that’s left is to elect a turd sandwich as President next, since we’ve got the giant douche in office now. (Or have I got that backwards?)
So you think there is more intrusion now than when you were forced to recite prayers and the pledge of allegiance in school, many sex acts were illegal, a large segment of the population was told where they could sit and what bathrooms they could use, people were drafted into serving in an unpopular war, 100,000 people were interred based on their race, books were banned for sexual content, etc?
Further to this story, Mueller is now asking that the speedy trial be waived to give his team time to get their act together. Seems pretty clear at this point that he was not ready to go to trial at the time he issued the indictment.
At the time, there was widespread consensus in favor of most of those things, which mitigated their divisiveness. The practical impact of those things on ordinary people was minimal. (The only exception was the your apparent reference to the Vietnam War, which was indeed enormously divisive.)
One way or another, commentary/analysis on this has been that it’s very unlikely that Mueller has any serious concerns about Kushner, or he would not have been cleared. For Example:
The question wasn’t whether there was consensus, or whether it was divisive, but whether it was intrusive (and more intrusive than now).
And while I didn’t experience it, I would think that segregated lunch counters and bathrooms, or internment during WWII, would have a significant impact on quite a lot of ordinary people.
No, the sentence needs to be read as a whole and in context (but sorry if it was unclear).
I wrote that one possible reason to believe that the election of a Trump-like figure has become more likely is “because with increasing government intrusion into people’s lives the stakes are that much higher and passions are more inflamed on both sides”. So if something is intrusive but is supported by the vast majority of the population, then it will not result in passions becoming more inflamed on both sides.
The point is that at this time, there are many areas where the government is involved in areas of people’s lives where there is not widespread agreement. The result is that many many people have a lot at stake in which side controls the government. When people have that much at stake and their passions are inflamed they are much more likely to 1) overlook serious flaws in the name of the Greater Cause, and 2) convince themselves that “their guy” is much less flawed than he actually is.
There have always been political battlefields over racial, cultural, and economic issues. But it’s possible that since the government is more of a presence in people’s lives than in years past, that these issues are more of an issue than in the past.
As you note, there have been specific issues that have directly impacted people in the past. But many of these have been areas that have had widespread support from the people, and wouldn’t have had the impact being discussed.
Not nearly a high enough percentage of the population to have that impact.
There was “consensus” that racial discrimination was not just okay, but preferred. there was “Consensus” that homosexual activity was not just frowned upon, but illegal. There was “consensus” that all other religious affiliations were second to christianity.
That you consider the people that those policies that were directed at harming at are not “ordinary people” is a pretty odd statement, unless your idea of what an “ordinary person” is is a straight, white, christian male, and the impact upon people that were not “ordinary people” is not worth consideration.
They were not “ordinary” in the specific context being discussed here, i.e. that there were not nearly enough of them to elect someone that they favored. So if a very seriously flawed candidate was promising to address their concerns, this person’s flaws would not be overlooked, because not enough people would be willing or predisposed to overlook them.
But, you claim that this feature of ignoring the concerns of marginalized groups “mitigated their divisiveness.” I would argue that that sort of thing encourages divisiveness, not mitigates it.
Can you cite some examples of increasing government intrusion into people’s lives that happened during the Obama years? Where is this rising socialism? Or are you creating a big juicy strawman to take swings at?
Try to understand the point being made and interpret the words in context instead of seizing on phrases in isolation.
I’ve not said anything about the Obama years in particular. It’s a general trend over the decades, including but not limited to the Obama years.
I’m trying to think of one example of “the government” intruding into my life.
I do have the hassle of the TSA line at the airport, but I’m not sure that’s what you mean.
Other than that, I do what I want, when I want, and go where I want to go. Heck, I can even buy a semi automatic rifle if I want. I can also buy liquor on Sundays now.
The ACA would be one recent example.
In general, there’s been a tendency to increasing government oversight and regulation over the years.
An increasing tendency to stricter interpretation of SOCAS issues is not socialism per se, but would be another example of the same factor, since it’s something which affects a lot of people with roughly comparable numbers on each side of the issue.
Christ on a stick. Guess I’ll have to start adding the feeders to the list, or stop following this thread.
Could there be stronger government interference than forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby? Or destroying a healthcare system without providing a viable alternative which leads to people actually fucking dying?
What could be more intrusive in your life than MAKING YOU FUCKING DEAD? Huh motherfucker? What?
Hmm, I guess I never thought of that. Glad you’re here to clear that up.
Legal question: what does “joint motion” mean?
A joint motion is one the parties have agreed upon; a motion is a request for the court to do something, and in this case the parties are joining together to make this request (practically speaking, this means that the court will usually grant the request).
It’s not at all uncommon for the parties to mutually agree to a continuance of the trial. This is especially true in federal court; for some reason, federal judges like to schedule trials shortly after the case is filed, rather than waiting for pretrial issues to be resolved and then schedule the trial date. The result is that it is very common, in federal criminal trials, for continuances to be granted, since the trial is almost always set too soon for everybody to be ready to go.
I was actually wondering the same thing myself. On looking around a bit I see instances of “joint motion for continuance” being filed by the defendants and opposed by the government, e.g. here. Jonathan Turley (the author of the linked article) is a highly capable lawyer, so I assume he understood what he was writing about WRT legal issues of this sort. That said, if any SDMB lawyers want to add some further commentary it might be helpful.
Thank you, that was a very clear explanation.