Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Can you READ???
Directly from your quote

It's not a law, being illegal is still being illegal, and LAWS don't get periodically reviewed.
The DACA kids don't suddenly become legal, they remain illegal aliens, but given certain rights as when they got there, they had no choice in the matter.

My my, you just proved my point.

WHICH LAWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO!!!
Man, you are good a destroying your own arguments and thinking they justify them.

What you FEEL is irrelevant to the LAW.
The ONLY reason the SCOTUS even SAW the case is because the Trump WH tried to circumvent the legal process and, the SCOTUS said "no, go through the process" They made no judgement about weather DACA was good, bad, legal or illegal, all they did was say "follow the legal process".

See how important the process is here?

Except, you don't understand that DACA does not make illegals LEGAL (which would indeed be unconstitutional via E.O.)
All it did was say "X crime by X group does not deserve X penalty, so we will change that penalty for X group under X circumstances to X"

Well, we will see, won't we? This is headed to SCOTUS, and do you have any bets on how an originalist SCOTUS is going to rule on this?

Hanen makes the same point that I made; this is an overreach of executive authority.

Texas Judge Says DACA Is Probably Illegal, But Leaves It In Place

A federal judge in Texas declined to issue a preliminary injunction in a case over the future of DACA — but he says the six-year-old program is likely unlawful.

The decision is a setback for Texas and nine other states that are suing to terminate DACA. The Obama-era program protects approximately 600,000 immigrants from deportation and allows them to work legally, even though they were brought to the country illegally as children.

But the order from Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen, issued Friday afternoon, may be only a temporary reprieve for DACA recipients: Hanen held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that the program is unlawful because it oversteps the authority of the executive branch.

"If the nation truly wants a DACA program," Hanen wrote, "it is up to Congress to say so."

[Womble]

So nothing wrong if the US passes a "We are a white state" law? Seriously? Look I understand the historical context for a "jewish" state. But needing to pass a law like that takes it beyond historical necessity.

If your parallel is "we are a white state" - then no, you don't understand. And the necessity is not historical but current. The law is necessary because war is being waged on Jewish nationhood. It will become obsolete once the war ceases.

The Israeli nation state law has zero on the ground impact - because it's little more than a populist move devoid of substance, a tautological restatement of things already contained in the Declaration of Independence and already existing basic laws. The only new addition - and the only real controversy - is the downgrading of the status of Arabic language which up until now was a state language. That bugs me. But I don't see how it is an apocalyptic event and why a foreigner should be concerned. How many state languages, after all, does the USA or Poland or Italy have?

Yes, we are a Jewish state. That was the idea of having a state, you know. The only place in the world where Passover is a national holiday and Hebrew is the national language. The one national state of the Jewish people. That was the raison d'etre for the state's very existence and we want to keep it that way. Why is it such a scandal?

The USA, Canada, Australia and other colonial territories are not a benchmark for what a nation state is, They are outliers. Freak of history. Immigrant-populated territories whose original inhabitants have been reduced to nothing, which sprang into existence less than 3 centuries ago. In the vast majority of states in the world, their Constitutions enshrine the status of the title nation's identity and culture above all others.

Let us leave aside the most glaring examples such as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which exists without scandalizing anyone. Most of the EU (Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Greece etc.) has a state religion in their constitutions /basic laws, and nobody makes a fuss. The Constitution of Ireland, for historical reasons quite similar to Israel's, clearly establishes the state's nature as the fulfillment of the Irish people's right to self-determination, but nobody compared it to "white state". Croatia's constitution delves into centuries of historical recounting to emphasise that the country is the nation-state of the Croatian people and the state (not the nation-state) of a long list of other minorities. Outside of the good old Jewish exclusion clause (quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi isn't your style of argument, after all), why is the same not okay for Israel? Why is it so scandalous to be the nation-state of the Jews?

As for your question. Tunisia. Kurdistan should it come to existence would be another democracy. So...yes.

Kurdistan is yet to happen, and its likelyhood to be a democracy hinges on the Kurdish national identity being stronger than their religious one.

Tunisia and Turkey are the only real-life examples of Muslim-majority states with a functioning democracy, and in Turkey the existence of democracy historically hinged on suppression of religion. As that weakened, so did democracy and now we have Erdogan systematically Islamizing the place. Tunisian democracy is its infancy, only 7 years old, and its survival is still in peril. Muslim democracies have a history of backsliding.

These are basically exceptions that prove the rule. And I don't see any relevance at all to the remainder of your post. Constitutions of India, Japan or South Korea are hardly counter-examples to the thesis that Muslim-majority populations lack popular support for genuine democracies. The African countries with functioning democracies (Kenya, Ethiopia) are invariably not majority-Muslim.

[aretood2]

If your parallel is "we are a white state" - then no, you don't understand. And the necessity is not historical but current. The law is necessary because war is being waged on Jewish nationhood. It will become obsolete once the war ceases.

The Israeli nation state law has zero on the ground impact - because it's little more than a populist move devoid of substance, a tautological restatement of things already contained in the Declaration of Independence and already existing basic laws. The only new addition - and the only real controversy - is the downgrading of the status of Arabic language which up until now was a state language. That bugs me. But I don't see how it is an apocalyptic event and why a foreigner should be concerned. How many state languages, after all, does the USA or Poland or Italy have?

Historical in no way implies irrelevance to the present. The problem with the law is that of the slippery slope. You can try to claim that Israel is somehow immune to the slippery slope, but that is all it will be. A claim. The Druze seem to think it is more of an existential threat than you do. So do other minorities in Israel. That alone merits discussion.

Yes, we are a Jewish state. That was the idea of having a state, you know. The only place in the world where Passover is a national holiday and Hebrew is the national language. The one national state of the Jewish people. That was the raison d'etre for the state's very existence and we want to keep it that way. Why is it such a scandal?

Why are Druze Israelis complaining now but not before?

Let us leave aside the most glaring examples such as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which exists without scandalizing anyone. Most of the EU (Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Greece etc.) has a state religion in their constitutions /basic laws, and nobody makes a fuss. The Constitution of Ireland, for historical reasons quite similar to Israel's, clearly establishes the state's nature as the fulfillment of the Irish people's right to self-determination, but nobody compared it to "white state". Croatia's constitution delves into centuries of historical recounting to emphasise that the country is the nation-state of the Croatian people and the state (not the nation-state) of a long list of other minorities. Outside of the good old Jewish exclusion clause (quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi isn't your style of argument, after all), why is the same not okay for Israel? Why is it so scandalous to be the nation-state of the Jews?

Being a state means taking criticism for the crap you do. Don't like it? Then you have two options. Dissolve Israel or deal with it. You can't handwave criticism away via "but those authoritarian repressive governments do it too!!!".


Britain didn't exist back when Henry VIII was divorcing his wives. You conveniently left out Spain. I wonder how many Catalans and Basques would agree with being called "Spanish", let's not ignore that "Spain" wasn't even an ethnicity in 1469 when Castile and Aragon were joined. There's a reason why the language is also called "Castilian". You are wrong on that point if you want to talk about when and how those nations got their names. The names were made to describe the ethnicity that formed at the same time as those states did. Jews are not an ethnicity formed at the same time as the State of Israel, not even the United biblical Kingdom of Israel. The ethnicity long predates either of those two nations. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Kurdistan is yet to happen, and its likelyhood to be a democracy hinges on the Kurdish national identity being stronger than their religious one.

You asked a question, I gave an answer. My answer was yes. You can claim that it won't be so. But once again, that's all it can be. Just a claim.

Tunisia and Turkey are the only real-life examples of Muslim-majority states with a functioning democracy, and in Turkey the existence of democracy historically hinged on suppression of religion. As that weakened, so did democracy and now we have Erdogan systematically Islamizing the place. Tunisian democracy is its infancy, only 7 years old, and its survival is still in peril. Muslim democracies have a history of backsliding.

These are basically exceptions that prove the rule. And I don't see any relevance at all to the remainder of your post. Constitutions of India, Japan or South Korea are hardly counter-examples to the thesis that Muslim-majority populations lack popular support for genuine democracies. The African countries with functioning democracies (Kenya, Ethiopia) are invariably not majority-Muslim.

The fact that there are only two functioning democracies in Africa, and only a handful in all of Asia proves my point. Democracy is a western concept. Which is why western nations are the ones that tend to be democracies and non-western nations tend to not be democracies. The rest, such as South Korea, India, and Japan, are exceptions. So why should Muslim nations be any different than all the other non-western nations?

Your question was also if Muslims got a choice. Tunisians did have a choice and they choose Democracy. news flash, democracies are hard. It's hardly unusual or unexpected for them not to always work out...most modern democracies spent time loosing their democracies. The US and the UK are exceptions in that case. So Tunisia and Turkey are following the established historical pattern for most democracies. Big surprise there.

Your country messed up and did something bad. It was bad. It is bad. Everyone who is not Jewish in Israel is complaining about it and the only ones who aren't also happen to be Jewish. If any other nation did the same thing, they'd be called out on it. Appealing to oppressive regimes like the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" only proves the point that Israel passed a worrisome law because only countries like Pakistan do those things!

[Coco Pops]

Have first world nations failed their citizens?

This is a bit of a rant and I'm a bit all over the place today but just watching TV news I find depressing.

I mean the goal of 100% employment is itself a bit of a myth. In any of these kind of wishful scenarios like post capitalist, or post scarcity, you are always going to get people who just slip through the cracks through no fault of their own.

I hate that in first world nations essential things like food, water, and electricity are so expensive that people struggle and sacrifice things like eating and being nourished just to keep the lights on. It's just sad and depressing. We have food banks where people can get food at low cost.

What kind of society would we need where everyone can be looked after and supported and these things could be thrown into history?

[Annoyed]

Have first world nations failed their citizens?

This is a bit of a rant and I'm a bit all over the place today but just watching TV news I find depressing.

I mean the goal of 100% employment is itself a bit of a myth. In any of these kind of wishful scenarios like post capitalist, or post scarcity, you are always going to get people who just slip through the cracks through no fault of their own.

I hate that in first world nations essential things like food, water, and electricity are so expensive that people struggle and sacrifice things like eating and being nourished just to keep the lights on. It's just sad and depressing. We have food banks where people can get food at low cost.

What kind of society would we need where everyone can be looked after and supported and these things could be thrown into history?

One where everything is obtainable for free. A society such as that depicted in FICTION such as Star Trek where cheap, unlimited energy and matter / energy conversion makes the cost of goods damned near zero.

[Chaka-Z0]

One where everything is obtainable for free. A society such as that depicted in FICTION such as Star Trek where cheap, unlimited energy and matter / energy conversion makes the cost of goods damned near zero.

Absolutes again. Not everything has to be free, we're far away from Trek. Resources such as water and basic food should be, because a human being needs to drink to live, it's fundamental.

I am telling you if things don't change in 50-100 years from now Canada will become of the richest country because we have the biggest reserve of fresh water in the world.

[jelgate]

He can only see in black and white

[Annoyed]

Absolutes again. Not everything has to be free, we're far away from Trek. Resources such as water and basic food should be, because a human being needs to drink to live, it's fundamental.

I am telling you if things don't change in 50-100 years from now Canada will become of the richest country because we have the biggest reserve of fresh water in the world.

It costs resources to grow that food and and more resources to transport it. It costs resources to collect, treat and filter that water, there are also costs in distribution, water pipes, pumping stations and so forth.

Since these resources are not free or nearly free, someone has to pay for them.

[jelgate]

The elderly can do it. They are already taking my money they don't need

[Womble]

Historical in no way implies irrelevance to the present. The problem with the law is that of the slippery slope. You can try to claim that Israel is somehow immune to the slippery slope, but that is all it will be. A claim.

If it's not a slippery slope in other countries, why would it be one in Israel?

Why are Druze Israelis complaining now but not before?

For reasons too Israeli to be fully known to a foreigner.

The Druze (and the Circassians, who are less known by the non-Israelis) don't have any problem with the concept of the Jewish state. They have a problem with being seen as Arabs. Their offence is with not having secured the mention of a special status of their particular minority. Also, the law endorsed Jewish settlement of the land of Israel but made no balancing mentions for minorities, and the Druze have been claiming discrimination in land allocation for a long time (largely a justified claim, unfortunately).

Being a state means taking criticism for the crap you do. Don't like it? Then you have two options. Dissolve Israel or deal with it. You can't handwave criticism away via "but those authoritarian repressive governments do it too!!!".

Oh we take criticism all the time. Hell, we criticize ourselves a good deal more than most nations, and our enemies frequently jump on the more extreme expressions of that to claim that "look, they admit it themselves!" But not all criticism is created equal. Some is just plain garbage, some comes from foreigners too blind to their privilege to understand our situation, some is actually malicious. There's no need to drop to our knees in tearful mea culpa every time someone doesn't like what we do.

Britain didn't exist back when Henry VIII was divorcing his wives.

Yet Britain is in no hurry to abolish their state religion in the 21st century.

You conveniently left out Spain. I wonder how many Catalans and Basques would agree with being called "Spanish", let's not ignore that "Spain" wasn't even an ethnicity in 1469 when Castile and Aragon were joined. There's a reason why the language is also called "Castilian".

Indeed a dreadful oversight on my part. Section 2 of the Spanish constitution would also make my case Indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation and no respect for what the Basques or the Catalans think on the matter. How did they ever get away with it?

You are wrong on that point if you want to talk about when and how those nations got their names. The names were made to describe the ethnicity that formed at the same time as those states did. Jews are not an ethnicity formed at the same time as the State of Israel, not even the United biblical Kingdom of Israel. The ethnicity long predates either of those two nations. You are comparing apples to oranges.

But I am not talking about names. You're way off tangent (surprisingly, you're usually quite capable of following the discussion). I am talking about how most nations have a "title nation" and "title culture" codified in their constitutions or constitution-equivalent laws, in almost identical manner to the nation state law of Israel.

You asked a question, I gave an answer. My answer was yes. You can claim that it won't be so. But once again, that's all it can be. Just a claim.

In other words, you have your opinion and you will not have it questioned. Indeed, pardon me for being accustomed to a higher level of discussion.

The fact that there are only two functioning democracies in Africa, and only a handful in all of Asia proves my point. Democracy is a western concept. Which is why western nations are the ones that tend to be democracies and non-western nations tend to not be democracies. The rest, such as South Korea, India, and Japan, are exceptions. So why should Muslim nations be any different than all the other non-western nations?

But that is completely untrue. Democracies are not rare at all in Asia's non-Muslim regions. Many of them don't get mentioned in such discussions only because they are too poor to the acknowledged as members of the club. The Philippines has consistently practiced functioning democracy since the 1940-s. Nepal is a democracy, as are India, Sri Lanka and Singapore. Thailand had a long history as a constitutional monarchy that answered all criteria of democracy up until the 2014 military coup.

[COLOR="#000080"]Your question was also if Muslims got a choice. Tunisians did have a choice and they choose Democracy. news flash, democracies are hard.

How did Tunisians suddenly gain choice? Did it fell from the sky? was it imposed from without, or did they gave themselves the choice?

Your country messed up and did something bad. It was bad. It is bad. Everyone who is not Jewish in Israel is complaining about it and the only ones who aren't also happen to be Jewish. If any other nation did the same thing, they'd be called out on it. Appealing to oppressive regimes like the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" only proves the point that Israel passed a worrisome law because only countries like Pakistan do those things!

You're yet to explain what was so bad. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

[Womble]

Have first world nations failed their citizens?

This is a bit of a rant and I'm a bit all over the place today but just watching TV news I find depressing.

I mean the goal of 100% employment is itself a bit of a myth. In any of these kind of wishful scenarios like post capitalist, or post scarcity, you are always going to get people who just slip through the cracks through no fault of their own.

I hate that in first world nations essential things like food, water, and electricity are so expensive that people struggle and sacrifice things like eating and being nourished just to keep the lights on. It's just sad and depressing. We have food banks where people can get food at low cost.

What kind of society would we need where everyone can be looked after and supported and these things could be thrown into history?

In a world of finite resources, every gain comes at a price, my naive friend. Food is cheap when farmers are poor. If you want everyone looked after, it will cost them their freedom. You can have whatever world you want, but always with a price tag to match.

[Gatefan1976]

A legal system used by a non-democraticly elected leader cannot be truly fair and equitable until proportional vote is established.

Until then, I don't care. The law is just a big board game that all the parties agrees on certain rules. The difference is that the Game Master of your D&D game was picked by the local comic book store owner, not by you and your pals.

What is FAIR is not an issue in a legal system, because a legal system is not designed to be "moral" per se.
If you want an attempt at "fair", have a justice system instead, but remember, that justice system IS moral, and it's based on the major morality of the country. In countries you disagree with their morality, their justice is, well, justified, and we have no right to interfere. This is somewhere where I agree with the right in terms of the law, what I do NOT agree with is them attempting to sneak "our justice" into the law, especially as a minority.

[Gatefan1976]

Well, we will see, won't we? This is headed to SCOTUS, and do you have any bets on how an originalist SCOTUS is going to rule on this?

But they are not originalists, they are bent on doing what they want. E.O.'s actually stripping amendment rights ARE illegal, and you want the SCOTUS to approve it.
If they were originalists, they would decline to rule as it is ALSO not their place to rule on such an issue. It's WHY SCOTUS kicked DACA back to the courts and the house/senate.

Hanen makes the same point that I made; this is an overreach of executive authority.

Texas Judge Says DACA Is Probably Illegal, But Leaves It In Place

If a JUDGE can't make a legal ruling, don't pretend you can. As I said before (and your own source), DACA is not a LAW, and judges have no power over things that are not laws, and he can "feel" it's illegal all he wants. Not RULING on it shows that he doesn't "feel" strongly about it enough to challenge it, probably because he knows he would get legally slaughtered over it.
Honestly, I would have thought a program that gives you nothing but the right to work in the US, but no other citizenship benefits would make you happy, they cannot vote, they have to make themselves known, and they contribute to the economy because the only thing they can do is WORK and not suck off the government.

[Gatefan1976]

For reasons too Israeli to be fully known to a foreigner.

In other words, you have your opinion and you will not have it questioned. Indeed, pardon me for being accustomed to a higher level of discussion.

Thanks!!

[Chaka-Z0]

It costs resources to grow that food and and more resources to transport it. It costs resources to collect, treat and filter that water, there are also costs in distribution, water pipes, pumping stations and so forth.

Since these resources are not free or nearly free, someone has to pay for them.

Paid by your taxes free for the people? We have free unlimited perfectly drinkable water everywhere here, I actually prefer its taste over bottled water. People abuse it so much some idiots waste their afternoon washing their driveway. I loathe these people.