Real Americans favor martial law

Check out the cross-tabs on this Daily Kos poll on the new Arizona immigration law:

Favor  Oppose  Not Sure

ALL 53      36      11

DEM 12      79       9
REP 89       7       4
IND 46      28      26

WHITE 63      26      11
LATINO 15      76       9
BLACK 8      80      12

It confirms what I’ve always believed about American politics: that if it were up to white voters, we would be living under a Franco-style military dictatorship (and I think that’s being generous). And that non-white voters, immigrants or not, (correctly) see the law as an excuse for police to hassle non-white drivers even more than they already do. Support is even lower among blacks than among Latinos.






132 replies
  1. 1
    beltane says:

    Blacks have a longer history of being targeted by police than Latinos. But it looks like Latinos are learning fast. A majority of white Americans believe their freedom hinges on everyone else’s oppression. To them, this country is nothing more than the Great White Protestant Fatherland. Shared values my ass.

  2. 2
    Douche Baggins says:

    Feh, all those darkies complaining about those mean policemens. If they hate it so much they should go back to Messico and Afrikkka.

    Did I mention I heard Dennis Praeger a couple of months ago suggest “We should attach videocameras to black people so that we can find out if it’s really true that there’s still racism in America”?

  3. 3
    stevie314159 says:

    Look at Kos’ next crosstab. It shows that support drops at least 5% when the “show your papers” requirement is quoted by the pollster.

    In other words, some people don’t know shit about issues they express an opinion about (see health car bill for proof). Rather than answer “I don’t know”, they proudly display their badge of ignorance.

    Also.

  4. 4
    celticdragonchick says:

    Just look at cop-fluffers who show up in any newspaper thread where officers taze a pregnant woman, grandma, or a mentally handicapped ethnic minority man in the bathroom.

    You get the idea we should be on our knees kissing their dangling scrotums in appreciation for not splattering our brains against the bedroom wall when they bust down the door looking for whatever…

  5. 5
    DougJ says:

    @beltane:

    Yes. If Latino voting patterns begin to resemble black voting patterns, it is literally game over for Republicans. As in no more Republican presidents ever.

  6. 6
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Douche Baggins:

    Did I mention I heard Dennis Praeger a couple of months ago suggest “We should attach videocameras to black people so that we can find out if it’s really true that there’s still racism in America”?

    Words fail.

  7. 7
    freelancer says:

    @Douche Baggins:

    Link or youre just a liberal plot to sully the name of an otherwise upstanding American named Dennis Prager.

  8. 8
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    And that non-white voters, immigrants or not, (correctly) see the law as an excuse for police to hassle non-white drivers even more than they already do.

    That’s how white voters see it too, though they usually aren’t honest enough to openly admit it.

    As usual with right-wing numbskullery they have no coherent reasons for passing this law. They deny that it encourages racial profiling and when asked what the cops are supposed to do with this increased authority if not profile brown-skinned people they can’t think of anything, then after puzzling for a moment will mumble something imbecilic about picking up day laborers by the side of the road. Of course it never occurs to knuckle-draggers that if picking up day laborers by the side of the road is a problem then you pass a law against picking up day laborers by the side of the road. But no. Pass a law giving police broad and unspecified new authority, then threaten to sue if they don’t use it. Brilliant.

  9. 9
    Short Bus Bully says:

    Franco style my ass, what the GOP and Wingnutia residents want is South African style Apartheid; nothing more, nothing less.

    Or more probably a return to the Antebellum South when God Loved the U.S.

    Amirite?

  10. 10
    r€nato says:

    Many white people simply don’t understand what ‘driving while black’ is all about.

    It’s easy to say, ‘just show your papers and you’ll be on your way’ when you don’t have to go through life being hassled by cops all the time.

  11. 11
    SB Jules says:

    Charles Barkley who used to be a Republican, I believe, and who lives in Arizona was vehement in his disgust with the bill before Los Suns’ game last night as were the rest of the panel that discusses the games.

    The Lakers have uniforms that say Los Lakers that they wore on Latino heritage night. I’m picturing a western conference final between Los Lakers & Los Suns.

  12. 12
    DougJ says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.):

    But if you outlaw picking up day laborers by the side of the road, then only outlaws will pick up day laborers by the side of the road.

  13. 13
    Davis X. Machina says:

    ….if it were up to white voters, we would be living under a Franco-style military dictatorship

    Herrenvolk democracy. The Civil War is over, and the South won.

  14. 14
    AhabTRuler says:

    DougJ@top: Careful, or Church Lady will come in and scorn you, again.

    ETA: Unless, that is, you are the Church Lady!? Hmmmmm!

  15. 15
    frankdawg says:

    Could part of the reason Hispanics approve at 15% be an attempt at being “good Hispanics”? As in “if I just act Republican enough I’ll be a good Hispanic & they will love me and treat me like an equal”.

    Black American’s have seen this for a much longer time & even have a term for it “house negro”. They also have seen how much that has gotten them & that explains their 8% approval.

  16. 16
    Rebecca says:

    It was truly depressing how many people were okay with this law when we ended up discussing it in my Flash class yesterday. People were like “oh, but Arizona is like half-Latino, so they are going to be doing any racial profiling” and “WELL THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ILLEGALS” and there I was going “IT IS A TERRIBLE LAW DAMMIT” and almost no one agreeing with me. And I live in the fricking Bay Area.

    Of course, it was just us white people talking about it. I kind of figure the POCs were trying to keep out of it for their sanity.

  17. 17
    Steve Finlay says:

    I must have really missed something.

    When were the words of the national anthem changed to: “o’er the land of the fascist, and the home of the bigot”?

  18. 18
    RSA says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.):

    Of course it never occurs to knuckle-draggers that if picking up day laborers by the side of the road is a problem then you pass a law against picking up day laborers by the side of the road.

    The law has that covered, too:

    13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for
    work; unlawful application, solicitation or
    employment; classification; definitions
    A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
    B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
    C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

  19. 19
    DougJ says:

    @Steve Finlay:

    When were the words of the national anthem changed to: “o’er the land of the fascist, and the home of the bigot”?

    Give me your tired, your poor, I’ll piss on ’em
    Your poor huddled masses?
    Let’s club ’em to death and get it over with

  20. 20
    Mary says:

    It confirms what I’ve always believed about American politics: that if it were up to white voters, we would be living under a Franco-style military dictatorship (and I think that’s being generous).

    Except that they’d just find another way to delineate the in group and the out group and suddenly all those white people that were targeted by in group would become real liberal real fast.

  21. 21
    r€nato says:

    @SB Jules:

    he called out McCain and Hayworth by name. Awesome.

    And yes, it’s going to be Los Fakes and Los Suns in the Western conference finals. And Los Suns are going to win it in 6.

  22. 22
    Mark S. says:

    @DougJ:

    If Latino voting patterns begin to resemble black voting patterns, it is literally game over for Republicans. As in no more Republican presidents ever.

    They can barely win the Electoral College as it is. They basically have to hold all their usual states and then win both Ohio and Florida.

  23. 23
    mattt says:

    if it were up to white voters, we would be living under a Franco-style military dictatorship (and I think that’s being generous).

    As a white male progressive Obama voter, I think the AZ law is bad news. But I have to say….

    My ancestors came from places (Poland; Catholics from Ireland and Germany) where a secular Franco-style military dictatorship would have represented a big improvement for many people, in terms of civil liberties and social mobility.

    I don’t claim that my family has shared any of the disadvantages of other American minorities. But the current views of many descendants of white immigrants continue to be influenced by their cultural heritage, even to the third and fourth generation and beyond.

    No need for hatin’, even on the white folk.

  24. 24
    mclaren says:

    As I’ve pointed out repeatedly. Most Balloon Juicers, like most Americans, loves them some police state. The only complaint most of you have is that the muggers with badges aren’t stamping their boots on your necks hard enough. Most of you are born slaves, unworthy of the constitution which you despise and which is rapidly being rendered obsolete, to your endless delight.

    Cue the infantile obscenities in…3…2…1…

  25. 25
    fucen tarmal says:

    “well if you have papers,why would you mind?” this is the general sentiment i get from many people who are also not coincidentally in the “cold dead hands” coalition. or believe they will fight for the right to be a member of the same religion as 2/3rds of all people also do…

    really clueless, to a scary degree. they really don’t think anything that happens to “them” is bad.

    its the richard pryor definition of a drug epidemic, “that means white people are doing it”

  26. 26
    Calouste says:

    @mattt:

    I suggest you read up on Franco. His dictatorship was neither secular nor encouraging social mobility. And to associate him with civil liberties is frankly laughable.

  27. 27
    mattt says:

    Crap, I tried to edit my last, because it reads like apologia for the AZ law (or worse), but ran against the time window.

    What I meant to say was: everybody comes from somewhere, and when you see those skewed numbers, before you get worked up it’s worth stepping back to consider the people behind them, and their cultural baggage.

    Also, too: it will do progressives no good at all, to start pointing at a White Devil.

  28. 28
    ChockFullO'Nuts says:

    @DougJ:

    I hope they do, but that is a big “if.”

    Dems can’t take those votes for granted, must make cogent and effective appeals to the desired blocs …. and there has to be really effective GOTV. Absent that, the poll numbers don’t mean much. This November is a big test, and right now, unless Dems get on the ball, we are poised to fail that test.

  29. 29
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    @RSA:

    IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

    You mean it wasn’t already against the law to impede the normal movement of traffic? At any rate, if they want to keep this part and repeal the parts that broaden police authority that’s fine with me.

  30. 30
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @DougJ:

    Yes. If Latino voting patterns begin to resemble black voting patterns, it is literally game over for Republicans. As in no more Republican presidents ever.

    Somewhere in China, Jon Huntsman is fiendishly smiling.

  31. 31
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @mclaren: What color is the sky on your home planet?

  32. 32
    Steaming Pile says:

    @Mary:

    Except that they’d just find another way to delineate the in group and the out group and suddenly all those white people that were targeted by in group would become real liberal real fast.

    Which is the textbook definition of national socialism. Liberalism for the in group, but not for the out group, who should thank God the in group lets them live.

  33. 33
    mattt says:

    @Calouste: Thanks for the politeness of your rejoinder.

    First off, I hope you note my own followup comment.

    Next – I inserted “secular” as a modifier for Franco. I honestly don’t know that much about him. I referenced him in a similar way to what I think DougJ meant: not that many Americans crave Franco reincarnated, but rather some strong authoritarian figure who looks good in a uniform and makes them feel safe.

    Trains running on time would be a bonus.

  34. 34
    Thoroughly Pizzled says:

    @mclaren: Umm… are you alright? And don’t play the “Everyone’s yelling at me, so I must have a legitimate point” card.

  35. 35
    DougJ says:

    @mclaren:

    Why “born slaves”? Wouldn’t it be more insulting to say that we were born free, but willingly relinquished our freedoms out of ignorance and fear?

  36. 36
    Cassidy says:

    @mclaren: Joe Rogan has better material, kiddo.

  37. 37
    de stijl says:

    The only complaint most of you have is that the muggers with badges aren’t stamping their boots on your necks hard enough.

    Imagine a Birkenstock lightly tapping on a human face – forever.

  38. 38
    mclaren says:

    @DougJ, Cassidy, Comrade Kevin, Thoroughly Pizzled:

    Yap, yap, yap, yap. Save it for the interrogator when he applies the electrodes to your genitals.

    Meanwhile, here’s why you’re born slaves — because in the face of a massive creeping police state, what’s the Democrat response?

    Organize?

    Mass demonstrations?

    General strike?

    Nope. Here’s the response of liberals:

    Dem turnout falls off a cliff.

    Enjoy your forthcoming Republican congress. And give President Palin my best in 2012.

    Here on Planet Earth, it’s deja vu all over again

  39. 39
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @DougJ: You are correct in your analysis, but I think the explanation lies in the simple fact that, bless his heart, mclaren just isn’t all that bright.

  40. 40
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    @mclaren: Got any, whuzzitcalled, evidence for this? You know, quotes and whatnot? Some actually reason to believe this outside of what the voices in your head tell you?

    @RSA: In other words, there’s now one more crime that illegal day laborers to be charged with, but people who hire them are fine as long as they pull into the parking lot rather than picking them up from the street.

    Yessir, this bill is all about stopping illegal labor, fo’ sho’. It’s funny how apologia for this bill always starts with, “if you’d just read the bill, you’d see it’s all right.” Maybe they’re not reading the same bill?

  41. 41
    Scamp Dog says:

    @DougJ: Some years back, the Washington Post’s Style Invitational (a humor contest) asked for palinodes, poems retracting earlier poems. One of the best entries was

    I send back your tired, your poor, your wretched huddled masses
    Au Revoir, don’t let the door
    Hit you in the asses

    At the time, I didn’t think there were that many people who would agree with that.

  42. 42
    Nutella says:

    There were, and still are, many people in Spain who think Franco had all the right ideas: religion, militarism, and eliminating trouble-makers without wasting time on silly stuff like jury trials.

    They also feel that looking forward, not backward, is very important so no one from those days was prosecuted AFAIK.

    Many Americans would feel right at home.

  43. 43
    Delia says:

    @mclaren:

    Enjoy your forthcoming Republican congress. And give President Palin my best in 2012.

    Oh dear. Sounds like you’ve been to a few too many tea parties lately.

    But don’t worry. Seek on the internets and you shall find
    Republican voter enthusiasm halved in past month.

  44. 44
    libarbarian says:

    And that non-white voters, immigrants or not, (correctly) see the law as an excuse for police to hassle non-white drivers even more than they already do.

    Thats a sloppy and inaccurate way of putting it.

    I’ll agree that a small minority of people are consciously racist and pernicious enough to think that, but the vast majority are the kind of people whose racism is unconscious and not overtly pernicious.

    They didn’t support this because it was an “excuse” to hassle a certain kind of people. They supported this because they either naively think that this won’t end up causing the hassle of lots of latino citizens and other “legals” or because they think that the desired ends justify the hassle and that latinos ought to accept this hassle for the greater good.

    I agree that racism plays a role in this, but the way you put it doesn’t accurately capture the real role that racism plays.

  45. 45
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Delia: Don’t fight mclaren with facts; s/he is immune to them.

  46. 46
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @mclaren:

    You should be looking to sell that weak sauce in stores nationwide.

  47. 47
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    @mclaren: Yes, if only we’d used more mass demonstrations, we’d be sitting pretty. Have liberals already forgotten the great success that was the 2003 demonstration against the Iraq War? It was the biggest world-wide demonstration in history, and it stopped the war cold! Why not do that again?

    And a general strike! That’s a great idea in an economy that’s set up dump all bad economic consequences onto the lower and middle classes. If we’d just grind the nation’s economy to a halt, we’d really show those fatcats by starving ourselves out while they continue to live off their vast wealth. Thanks for the tip!

    Oh, and we could organize! Because unions simply don’t exist, and where they don’t there’s absolutely no heavy pressure to keep them from forming. Nope, we’d be living in a worker’s paradise if we didn’t enjoy the lash so much.

  48. 48

    @Short Bus Bully: Sure yer rite.

    Over the past few months I’ve come across various arguments in defense of slavery (as practiced by Christians, of course). Never seen that before.

  49. 49
    Cassidy says:

    @mclaren: ….and your little dog too!

  50. 50
    Comrade Tank Hueco says:

    mclaren is what happens when keepin’ it real goes wrong.

  51. 51
    someguy says:

    So you’re just now getting evidence that white people are overwhelmingly a bunch of racist fucks, DougJ?

    What, were lynching trees, what we did to the Indians, and the many genocides or we pulled off or attempted in Europe too anecdotal for you to take seriously?

    Well, thank God we’ve got Kos to give you some solid empirical evidence, to bring you out of the darkness.

    Um, as it were.

  52. 52
    DougJ says:

    @someguy:

    I said it was further evidence for what I’ve always believed.

  53. 53
    gwangung says:

    @mclaren: Are you under the impression some of us haven’t faced electrodes before, either for ourselves or our relatives?

    Overprivileged ass.

  54. 54
    mclaren says:

    Crackpots and kooks:

    Between shrieking that I’m mentally retarded or insane for pointing out the documented polls that keep showing catastrophically low turnout among Democratic voters, you cranks apparently haven’t had time to read Charlie Cook’s political report.

    Cook is non-partisan and goes waaaaaaaaaay back. He’s a stone cold expert on congressional elections, and he’s calling the November 2010 congressional elections for the Repubs in a landslide.

    He’s not alone. Nate Silver projects that Obama needs to maintain a 65% approval rating in order to avoid losing Democratic seats in congress this November. The daily Rasmussen tracking poll shows Obama’s approval rating today at 47% with 52% disapproving, and that rate has held “remarkably steady for the last two months.”

    But by all means, keep screaming insults at me — I’m mentally retarded, I’m hearing voices in my head so I’m insane, I’m possessed by the devil, I’m an insectoidal space alien who eats babies, whatever.

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a Republican congress this fall is a lock. The only real question remains: will November 2012 be a replay of November 1980, when the Democrats strutted and smirked with serene certainty at Barack Obama’s Jimmy Carter’s “inevitable” electoral victory against that living joke of a candidate, whom everyone knew was an ignorant boob and a witless fool…Sarah Palin Ronald Reagan?

  55. 55
    someguy says:

    @mclaren:

    Nice pie.

  56. 56
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    @dumbass: “Losing seats” /= “Republican congress this fall is a lock”

    Still waiting for those quotes proving that BJ is full of house negros.

    And yes, this upcoming election will be just like the 1980 election. Obama is sure to lose the presidency.

  57. 57
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @mclaren:

    He’s not alone. Nate Silver projects that Obama needs to maintain a 65% approval rating in order to avoid losing Democratic seats in congress this November.

    Few, if any, people here think that the Dems will not lose seats this fall. There is, however, a difference between losing seats and losing a majority. Can you understand that?

  58. 58
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @mclaren:

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a Republican congress this fall is a lock.

    No, it really isn’t.

    And let’s see how many posts it takes for you to respond to the documented poll showing Republican enthusiasm for the upcoming elections dropped in half the past month.

  59. 59
    Malron says:

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a Republican congress this fall is a lock. The only real question remains: will November 2012 be a replay of November 1980, when the Democrats strutted and smirked with serene certainty at Barack Obama’s Jimmy Carter’s “inevitable” electoral victory against that living joke of a candidate, whom everyone knew was an ignorant boob and a witless fool…Sarah Palin Ronald Reagan?

    Methinks Brick oven Bill has changed his user name.

  60. 60
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    @Midnight Marauder: That was a Gallup poll. Real straight-shooting Americans know that only Rasmussen can be trusted.

  61. 61
    kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Silver goes on to make that very distinction, actually, in that same article that mclaren read.

  62. 62
    AZmando says:

    Most Republicans would fit right into Chile under Pinochet or the Phillipines under Ferdinand Marcos. Their preference would be a government that serves the rich, the powerful and connected big businesses, cares nothing about the middle and lower classes, and that would simply disappear you if you misbehave.

    Shut up, mind your own business, and you’re OK.

    I believe the greatest political success story in American history is the Republican party’s ability to convince a large part of the middle and lower classes to act clearly against their own self-interest, and to support the rich and powerful elites.

  63. 63
    celticdragonchick says:

    @mclaren:

    I’m trying to figure you out. Are you a firebagger…a random visitor from Reason…or is this performance art as “Triumph: The Insult Comic Troll”?

  64. 64
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @kay: Interesting.

  65. 65
    Mark S. says:

    @libarbarian:

    Doug was talking about non-white voters, not white voters. As for why white voters support the law, I agree with your second theory that whites don’t think this is much hassle at all (“Just show em your license,” is something I’ve heard from defenders of this law).

  66. 66
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @mclaren:

    The current makeup of the House:

    Affiliation Members
    Democratic Party 253
    Republican Party 178
    Vacancy 4
    Total 435
    Majority 75

    The Senate:

    Affiliation Members Note
    Democratic Party 57
    Republican Party 41
    Independent 2 Both caucus with the Democrats
    Total 100

    Anyone who thinks that the Democrats will lose a 75-seat majority in the House, and lose 9 seats in the Senate, is an idiot.

  67. 67
    Alex says:

    I try not to say things like “Stuff like this makes me embarrassed to be white”, because stupid racial generalizations like that do nothing but poison debate and harden stereotypes.

    …But Goddamn, I’m running out of options.

  68. 68
    someguy says:

    @Alex:

    If it helps, Alex, we’re all embarrassed that you’re white.

  69. 69
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Alex: I know exactly what you mean.

  70. 70
    mclaren says:

    @Crackpot Omnibus:

    Few, if any, people here think that the Dems will not lose seats this fall. There is, however, a difference between losing seats and losing a majority. Can you understand that?

    Hey, spit-for-brains…wake up and smell the latte. In today’s political world, the Republicans don’t need a majority to stop the government dead in its tracks and shut down every Democratic initiative for the next 2 years. All they need is 41 seats in the senate to prevent cloture and 41% of the setas in the House. They’re already at that point in the Senate, right now, today, since the hugely popular financial reform bill is stalled dead in its tracks by the failure to reach cloture on the Repub filibuster against it, and the House is deaded straight for that 41% this November.

    Before you open your mouth about this stuff, it’d be nice if you had a ghost of a clue what you’re talking about.

    @Jrod, Kook of Nutjobs:

    Every time I make a statment crackpots like you have stood by and sneered and demanded evidence. Then when I’ve provided evidence with link after link and quote after quote, the ignorant kooks like you shut up…and then another ignorant kook pops up and sneers, “Show us the proof” all over again.

    I’m tired of it.

    Turnabout is fair play, crackpot. You’ve made a claim: I’m a dumbass. Great. Prove it.

    Balloon Juice has passed the two million user mark, so it seems reasonable for you to provide evidence that at least 10% of the Balloon Juice user base favors reducing police poewrs and restoring civil rights.

    So pony up, jerkoff. Right here. Right now.

    Provide us with hard evidence by linking to a quote from each of those 200,000 Balloon Juice users.

    C’mon, kook. We’re waitiing.

    Get going. Show us those 200,000 links.

    Otherwise you’re spewing horsesh|t.

    Then, after you’ve done that, provide us with a notarized verified copy of an IQ test showing I’m mentally deficient. Oh…wait…you can’t, because everything out of your mouth is either ignorant nonsense or a foolish lie.

    Form a line, crackpots. Rhetorically speaking, I’ll rip your heads off and sh|t down your necks one at a time, in numerical order.

  71. 71
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @mclaren:

    All they need is 41 seats in the senate to prevent cloture and 41% of the setas in the House.

    The house works on strict majority rules, no filibusters there.

    They’re already at that point in the Senate, right now, today, since the hugely popular financial reform bill is stalled dead in its tracks by the failure to reach cloture on the Repub filibuster against it, and the House is deaded straight for that 41% this November.

    FinReg is moving forward, slowly.

    Thanks for playing.

  72. 72
    Mark S. says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    Mclaren is the last angry man!

  73. 73
    MattR says:

    @mclaren:

    All they need is 41 seats in the senate to prevent cloture and 41% of the setas in the House.

    What do the Republicans gain from getting to 41% of the House?

  74. 74
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @mclaren:

    So pony up, jerkoff. Right here. Right now.

    What was it you were saying earlier?

    @mclaren:

    Cue the infantile obscenities in…3…2…1…

    You are an idiot, a hypocrite, a dolt, a gormless yahoo. Piss off.

  75. 75
    binzinerator says:

    @DougJ:

    Give me your tired, your poor, I’ll piss on ‘em
    Your poor huddled masses?
    Let’s club ‘em to death and get it over with

    Yeah, Lou knew.

  76. 76
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @MattR:

    What do the Republicans gain from getting to 41% of the House?

    LOL, I missed that part. So much for mclaren’s understanding of anything at all.

  77. 77
    Cassidy says:

    @ Malron

    No, BoB has a certain stream of consciousness to his rants, lacking in Mclaren’s pitiable panic and desperation.

  78. 78
    de stijl says:

    and 41% of the setas(sic) in the House.

    I know I shouldn’t be feeding you, but you do know that there are no filibusters in the House, yes?

    And that supermajority House rules apply in only very limited circumstances like over-riding Presidential vetoes, constitutional amendments, or if a Presidential election passes to Congress?

  79. 79
    celticdragonchick says:

    @mclaren:

    Crackpots and kooks: Crockpots and cakes

    Between shrieking that I’m mentally retarded or insane for pointing out the documented polls that keep showing using rancid lard in my pie crust and getting catastrophically low turnout among Democratic sickening results with votersanybody who likes food of any sort, you cranks apparently haven’t had time to read Chef Charlie Cook’s political hacktastic report on using substandard ingredients to cut costs.

    Cook is non-partisan a graduate of an online computer culinary course and goes waaaaaaaaaay back. He’s a stone cold expert on congressional elections ruining perfectly good food, and he’s calling the November 2010 congressional elections for the Repubs in a landslide criticism of his cost cutting measures a ‘personal disappointment”.

    I want some pie.

    Mmm.

    Fresh cherry pie would be good.

  80. 80
    Citizen_X says:

    @mclaren: Wow. That was, like, a diamond-perfect own goal. “They’re gonna get 41% in the House, or maybe even 42%! THAT’S JACK SHIT PLUS ONE PERCENT!”

    Before you open your mouth about this stuff, it’d be nice if you had a ghost of a clue what you’re talking about.

    Um, yeah.

  81. 81
    Mark S. says:

    @mclaren:

    Before you open your mouth about this stuff, it’d be nice if you had a ghost of a clue what you’re talking about.

    Says the man who presumably believes the House has a filibuster rule.

    Mclaren, you occasionally have a righteous rant and I’m like, “Preach it, brother,” but you are being an asshole tonight.

  82. 82
  83. 83
    mclaren says:

    @MattR:

    What do the Republicans gain from getting to 41% of the House?

    Learn to read, kook. I never said the Repubs needed 41% in the house to prevent cloture. Here’s what I said again, since you haven’t passed your Test of English As a Second Language:

    All they need is 41 seats in the senate to prevent cloture

    Once the Repubs get to 41% in the Senate they can block any legislation, and even if the house passes a bill, the Repubs can prevent reconciliation. How?

    Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

    60 senators. So the claim that a “simple majority vote is required to pass reconciliation” is false. All one Republican needs to do is raise that procedural objection. Learn the law, kook.

    What they get from 41% in the house is more members on the House Rules committee, more opportunity to gum up the works. In case you didn’t know, before a bill gets to the floor of the house, the House Rules committee gets to determine the rules by which it is even permitted to be considered (if at all).

    @Comrade Kevin:

    So you’ve got nothing. Nothing but obscenities. Provide the proof for your statements or STFU and go away, you ignorant crackpot.

  84. 84
    ruemara says:

    I don’t think of any white person, including the bigoted ones, as “the white devil”. Even after some real fun run ins with bigotry. I doubt many browner people do. It’s just rather hard to stomach the pervasive sense of failure after working as hard as others of the less brown persuasion yet achieving not even half. It’s the subtle air of condescension around very liberal open minded types who say you’re so smart that such a good idea and you feel like someone has just given you a metaphysical doggie treat, because your good idea goes nowhere. Being brown is like being invisible, yet cursed. You mean nothing, but you have to watch every nuance of your body, your language, your emotions, because you can’t afford to appear to be a stereotype. Visible only when derisible.

    I could wish that there was a general understanding that prejudice isn’t wrong, it’s there to be examined and kept in check. We all pre judge. Sadly, much of the agreement found in this poll has to do with a prejudice that most of the illegals are from Mexico and they bring crime. Compound that with ignorance of the tenets of the law and you get these results.
    Socioeconomic justice in America…I don’t know when that phrase will be true for all. INCLUDING white people.

  85. 85
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @mclaren:

    So you’ve got nothing. Nothing but obscenities.

    I have yet to use an obscenity. You, on the other hand…

    The House works on majority rule. When you have 41%, you’re leading Jack and shit, and Jack just left town.

    Oops, I just used an obscenity.

  86. 86
    MattR says:

    @mclaren: And where did I ever say that you said that the House needed 41% to prevent cloture? I asked you a simple question about the benefits of 41% in the House, which you finally answered after a bunch of useless invective.

    What they get from 41% in the house is more members on the House Rules committee, more opportunity to gum up the works. In case you didn’t know, before a bill gets to the floor of the house, the House Rules committee gets to determine the rules by which it is even permitted to be considered (if at all).

    The only problem with your answer is that the Rules committee is actually fixed so that the majority party always holds 9 of the 13 seats.

  87. 87
    mclaren says:

    Ignorant cranks:

    Provide hard evidence the Repubs aren’t going to sweep the House or stand revealed as ignorant kooks screaming lies.

    Let’s go, jerkoffs. Show us the hard evidence. C’mon, let’s have the links.

    I provided two links, one to Charlie Cook’s political report site and one to Nate Silver (who’s done by far the most accurate meta-analysis of political polls at his fivethirtyeight.com site), showing that the Repubs are likely to sweep the congress in a landslide this November due to low liberal voter turnout.

    You cranks in turn have provided nothing.

    No evidence.

    No polls.

    No data.

    No forecasts.

    No regression coefficients.

    No projections of voter turnout.

    Nothing but the usual empty hysterical insults — “idiot,” “troll,” “asshole,” “pitiable panic and desperation,” “dolt, gormless yahoo.”

    Now it’s your turn to provide the hard evidence to back up your vacuous gibberish, kooks.

    @Mark S: Provide us with 3 (three) links to solid polls projecting a Democratic gain in seats in both the house and the senate this November or stand revealed as an ignorant liar for calling me an “asshole” because I cited the polling evidence.

    That’s 6 links to hard evidence all told. 3 URLs refuting each of my two links citing the polling evidence and projections for November 2010.

    We’re waiting, Mark. S. Cough up those 6 links and cough ’em up now — otherwise we know you’re an ignorant liar and a clueless kook.

    @Citizen X: Pony up the hard evidence that the rules of reconciliation do not require a 60 vote majority to override the procedural objection. Since the rules for reconciliation are written down in black and white, you’vegot a tough row to hoe — I’d saw 10 world-class constitutional scholars would do it, though, so provide us with notarized statements by at least 10 world-class constitutional scholars right now…otherwise we’ll know you’re full of shit and lying out your ass because you’re too stupid to realize that this November is heading up to be a giant clusterfvck for the Democrats and you’re too infantile to admit it.

    Let’s go, Citizen X. Snap to it. Where are those notarized affadivts by those 10 world-class constitutional scholars refuting the documented rules for reconciliation?

    That’s right, you can’t produce ’em, because you’re spewing ignorant nonsense when you claim that the Repubs gaining seats in the House doesn’t get you “jack shit.” The Repubs have already nearly brought the whole government to a standstill, and that’s with the Demos having a supermajority. What do you think it’s going to be like when that supermajority evaporates?

    You don’t think. You just stand there with your fingers in your ears yelling “LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOUEVERYTHING’S GOING TO BE WONDERFUL IN NOVEMBER!”

    @Comrade Kevin Kook:

    Anyone who thinks that the Democrats will lose a 75-seat majority in the House, and lose 9 seats in the Senate, is an idiot.

    Great. Provide us with 10 (ten) links to polling researching showing the regression coefficients on the trend lines that prove the Democrats won’t lose a 75-seat majority in the Houes and 9 seats in the Senate, given what every political expert describes as an “historic” collapse in Democratic turnout projected forward 6 months.

    Let’s go, kook. Let’s have those 10 URLS. Right here, right now, otherwise we’ll all know you’re spewing gibberish and screaming lies.

  88. 88
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @mclaren: Sad.

  89. 89
    MattR says:

    @mclaren:

    Provide hard evidence the Repubs aren’t going to sweep the House or stand revealed as ignorant kooks screaming lies.

    What does “sweep the House” mean? Does that mean they will end up with a majority after the 2010 election? Does that mean that they will win more seats in the 2010 election than they had prior to the election? We don’t want to be accused of creating strawman answers so we need to know what exactly we need to prove.

  90. 90
    MattR says:

    @mclaren:

    Great. Provide us with 10 (ten) links to polling researching showing the regression coefficients on the trend lines that prove the Democrats won’t lose a 75-seat majority in the Houes and 9 seats in the Senate, given what every political expert describes as an “historic” collapse in Democratic turnout projected forward 6 months.

    Since you linked to him earlier, I assume that Nate Silver is OK.

    The Republicans now have only a 6 percent chance of an outright takeover of the Senate, according to the model. Note, however, that our simulations had also shown this possibility to be somewhat overstated to begin with; it would have required a clean sweep of all competitive races, as well as a recruiting success in New York or Wisconsin

  91. 91
    Josh says:

    I honestly don’t understand why you guys engage mclaren in any kind of debate. The only thing he’s interested in is lower the discourse.

    I mean, really, to any outside observer he’s an obvious troll. You can’t just make claims without evidence (and, frankly, often based on emotional attacks) about the posters on this site and base all future arguments on those claims.

    It’s hilarious watching mclaren twist in the wind. Perhaps this is just some extended “trolling the troll” gag. If that’s the case, I’m all for it.

    Also, mclaren: please provide operation definitions of some of the key vocabulary you chose to use in your arguments. By not doing that, you’re building up straw-men. When someone knocks one of those down, you use it as evidence of the validity of your claims, and build another straw-man.

    If you can’t do this, you wouldn’t even be able to pass a high-school level philosophy class.

  92. 92
    Mike in NC says:

    BoB has a certain stream of consciousness to his rants, lacking in Mclaren’s pitiable panic and desperation.

    Anybody remember the Debbie Downer character from SNL?

  93. 93
    mclaren says:

    @Comrade Kevin Kook:

    Learn some mathematics before your spew ignorant crap and make a fool of yourself.

    Nate Silver discusses the regression coefficients applied to past polling trends in midterm elections and projects the results forward to November 2010:

    In my piece a couple of weeks ago, I wrote that there was only a 1 in 10 chance that Democrats would lose more than 55 seats in November. Having now looked at this issue in somewhat more detail, that clearly seems to be a lowball estimate. While there is other statistical and anecdotal evidence that one can point toward that is relatively more favorable to Democrats, and while there are other techniques, like a district-by-district analysis, that could be applied to this problem instead — if you could get 9:1 odds (a 1-in-10 chance) on the Democrats losing more than 55 seats in the House, that would be a good bet.

    And what if, for example, the Rasmussen case comes into being? Rasmussen has the Democrats losing the generic ballot by 9 points (and has had similar numbers for awhile). A 9-point loss in the House popular vote would translate into a projected 65-seat loss for Democrats. Or, if we adjust the Rasmussen poll to account for the fact that the Democrats’ performance in the popular vote tends to lag the generic ballot, it works out to a 12.4-point loss in the popular vote, which implies a loss of 79 seats!

    Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats”.

    Note that the title is misleading. The Rasmussen case isn’t a “doomsday scenario.” On the contrary: evidence increasingly show that it’s a firming trend based on polls that haven’t changed for several months now.

    Republican candidates now hold a seven-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for Republicans held steady from last week, while support for Democrats dipped slightly.

    Last week, the GOP had a six-point lead over Democrats, the narrowest gap between the two parties this year. That was an improvement from two weeks ago when Republicans posted a 10-point lead, a high reached only one other time since January and the party’s biggest lead in the history of Rasmussen Reports polling.

    In April, the number of adults not affiliated with either major party increased by 1.6 percentage points, while the number identifying themselves as Republicans decreased 1.3 percentage points. This marks the lowest level for Republicans since July 2008.

    Still, 43% of voters not affiliated with either major party now prefer the Republican candidate, while 21% like the Democrat.

    Your ignorantly foolish error, Comrade Kook, involves your probable assumption that a 7% lead in Republican polling translates into a 7% gain for Republicans in the House, but it doesn’t work that way because polling is a dynamical system and the trendlines are moving — also, the House popular vote and a generic ballot are not the same thing, and historically the difference has worked to the Republicans’ favor.

    As Nate Silver points out:

    We can model this by means of a regression analysis on past Congressional elections, where the input variables are (i) the result of the popular vote; (ii) the number of seats that a party controlled at the end of the previous election, and (iii) an interaction term between the first two variables. My model looked at all years since Alaska and Hawaii became eligible to vote for the Congress in 1958 (although weighting recent elections more heavily), but excluding those cycles immediately following redistricting. The losses that this model would project for a given result in the popular vote this year are illustrated below…

    Nate Silver, op.cit.

    Still think I’m an “idiot”?

    You haven’t provided any regression analyses to disprove these trendlines and you haven’t come up with any URLs linking to hard evidence to disprove any of the evidence I provided, so we now know you’re an ignorant sociopathic liar screaming gibberish to avoid having to admit that this November, liberals are going to get crushed at the polls.

    Notice something:

    I always link to the hard math, the hard numbers, the regression coefficients, the verified factual evidence.

    The kooks and cranks and crackpots always scream I’m mentally ill, mentally retarded, a fool, an idiot, and when anyone asks for proof of their smear we get…

    …Nothing.

    Nothing at all.

    Empty screaming, vacuous hysteria.

    That’s America in 2010 in a nutshell. Those of us who take a hard look at the objective evidence gets screamed into oblivion with hysteria and lies and insults and smears, while the majority of kooks claps their hands raw in favor of foolish nonsense–in this case, the smug self-assurance that, just because the tea partiers are insane and the Republicans have zero coherent policy and zero plans for fixing anything and just because Palin is an empty-headed ignorant clown, the voters can’t possibly elect them.

    It would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn’t.

  94. 94
    Josh says:

    You know, now that I think about, mclaren is reminiscent of many of the Ron Paultards I tried to debate in the 2007-2008 time-frame of the Presidential elections. Often, they make an emotional attack that is based on an often-incorrect assessment of your character, usually so incorrect that any such assertion is infuriating.

    They then accuse you of making baseless attacks. When you refute their claims with hard evidence, they take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to the argument, and assume that the responsibility to prove yourself right, and them wrong, falls squarely on you, and they can spout any bullshit they want.

    When you get over that bump, they ask you to “do the research” and provide links to the information. When you do that, they tell you that the research is flawed or you’re reading it wrong, and give you a link to Zeitgeist the movie.

  95. 95
    Midnight Marauder says:

    And let’s see how many posts it takes for you to respond to the documented poll showing Republican enthusiasm for the upcoming elections dropped in half the past month.

    I will note that we are 40+ posts removed from this rebuttal and you have yet to address its merits, which were are concerning your thesis in your initial post. To wit:

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a Republican congress this fall is a lock.

    @mclaren:

    I provided two links, one to Charlie Cook’s political report site and one to Nate Silver (who’s done by far the most accurate meta-analysis of political polls at his fivethirtyeight.com site), showing that the Repubs are likely to sweep the congress in a landslide this November due to low liberal voter turnout.

    I, as well, am a fan of touting authors whose work explicitly discredits the very nonsense ideas I am propagating. Also. Too.

    @Citizen_X:

    : Wow. That was, like, a diamond-perfect own goal. “They’re gonna get 41% in the House, or maybe even 42%! THAT’S JACK SHIT PLUS ONE PERCENT!”

    The helicopters…are not…amused…

  96. 96
    MattR says:

    @Josh:

    When you get over that bump, they ask you to “do the research” and provide links to the information. When you do that, they tell you that the research is flawed or you’re reading it wrong, and give you a link to Zeitgeist the movie.

    Or to Rassmussen, the pollster :)

    Or they just ignore you and move on to attack the next person.

  97. 97
    robuzo says:

    Since you mention the “the law as an excuse for police to hassle non-white drivers,” I can’t help but wonder if, giving the law (probably way too much) benefit of doubt, the new law isn’t an additional tool for police to use when they stop a motorist who turns out to be driving without a license and, as is often the case in such situations, without insurance. There is very likely a strong connection between the high numbers of unlicensed/uninsured drivers on the road in border states and other states like Florida and high numbers of undocumented workers. These drivers constitute a major burden on the system, cause an increase in insurance costs to the average person, and are a real menace- just ask anyone who has been in an accident involving one.
    Given the poor state of public transportation in most places in the US, if we are going to invite cheap foreign labor to our country (the illegals are finding work, and if someone is willing to give you a job you won’t feel entirely uninvited) we are going to have to find a way for them to get around safely. Conversely, we can just keep doing what we have been doing, which is worse than nothing. The Arizona law may be wrongheaded and heavily supported by racists, but at the same time it also can be seen as representative of the desperation that even a lot of fair-minded people are feeling when it comes to the impact on society of undocumented aliens working illegally.

  98. 98
    Mark S. says:

    @mclaren:

    Dude, you want me to find you six links proving a contention I never made on this thread? I’ll get right on that, boss.

  99. 99
    Bill Arnold says:

    mclaren:

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a Republican congress this fall is a lock.

    I suggest you also follow intrade.com. There, the odds slightly favor Democrats retaining bare control of the House (53%), and the odds of Democrat’s retaining control of the Senate are roughly 75%.
    The midterms largely depend on the state of economy in October, IMO. Lack of an actual coherent Republican message will help Democrats as well.

  100. 100
    Thoroughly Pizzled says:

    @mclaren: Jesus Christ, don’t you have better things to do? First off, you’ve compiled lots of evidence to support your assertion that the Democrats will lose seats in November – which NO ONE disputes. But when we take offense to your less-likely prediction that Republicans will gain control of Congress, you go ballistic. Calm down. Either you’re an impostor, or something’s seriously gone wrong on your end.

  101. 101
    Malron says:

    @MattR: I notice mclerror completely ignored your quote from Nate Silver. Color me shocked.

  102. 102
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mark S.: I wasn’t given a homework assignment. I haz a sad.

  103. 103
    Malron says:

    @Josh: Perfect analysis, sir.

  104. 104
    Josh says:

    @MattR:

    It took me two years and six Communications Studies classes to come to the conclusion that all public polling is, essentially, bullshit.

    I trust only Nate Silver because he knows how to read, use, and aggregate the data of the polls.

    One of my professors, a noted and respected expert on polling, had a discussion on Talking Points Memo about how flawed it was to poll “undecided” voters because you can’t really define them. It skewed results.

    In class, he would often use stuff like that as a basis for arguing that the only way to really be able to use public polling with any real validity was to aggregate the total of all of the most reliable outfits (often he’d mumble something about taking Rasmussen with a grain of salt because of how they conduct their polling).

  105. 105
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    @robuzo: Driving without a license is already illegal, no extra laws needed.

  106. 106
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @mclaren: Back in an earlier comment, you said:

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a Republican congress this fall is a lock.

    What you cite from Nate Silver does not show that in any way, shape or form. It actually points to the opposite, that the Democrats will likely keep control of both houses.

    Nice try. Calling people a “kook” over and over won’t change that.

  107. 107
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    Oh, and McTrollen: If you want evidence that BJ readers don’t favor a police state, you could try, I dunno, reading any thread that touches on the subject. You know, the threads full of angry people decrying police brutality or bemoaning racial profiling. But, you have to actually read the words written, rather than decoding them according to your imaginary friend’s instructions.

    As for proving that I’m right about the outcome of an election that’s six months away, I’m afraid I’m fresh out of plutonium to fuel my time machine. Maybe you could take yours to check it our for us?

  108. 108
    Josh says:

    @Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix:

    But…plutonium is available at every corner drugstore!

    @Comrade Kevin:

    mclaren follows the traditional Paultard form I outlined above. He made a few tweaks (contending that we’re kooks instead of linking to the kooks himself), but it’s there.

    As has been noticed, he doesn’t respond to substantive retorts to his arguments, but he does cherry-pick the hell out of comments and sets up straw-men.

    When you sit back and just read the comments he makes without responding so you can be dispassionate about them, you can easily see the huge flaws and cracks in his arguments. It’s like putting on a pair of chromatic glasses to see a hidden message.

    He uses big words and, yes, highly intelligent concepts to make an argument that is at once misleading, illogical, and almost completely unsupported by the evidence that he presents; however, he knows this, which is why he also launches the attacks against “liberals” and “kooks” and does the bait-and-switch about the “love” for the “police-state.”

    It’s a sleight of hand, if you catch the meaning.

  109. 109
    Ecks says:

    Is it me, or did McClaren just pull the old “start a fight then immediately pretend you’re getting picked on”?

    Anyway, McClaren, if you want PROOF!!1 that we don’t like police state crap around these parts, how about
    this post, or this one , or this one, or, I don’t know, this one.

    Oh wait, you wanted six right? And that’s only four. Hm. Guess that means I have to get drastic about this search and extend it to cover yesterday too. Here’s number five, and number six

    Oh now you might say 2 of those are posts about the same topic (almost like someone feels, I don’t know, strongly about it or something). Ok, here’s number seven.

    Now that we have delivered the evidence you asked for, please kindly do us all a favor and STFU.

  110. 110
    ChockFullO'Nuts says:

    @mclaren:

    I’m mentally retarded, I’m hearing voices in my head so I’m insane, I’m possessed by the devil, I’m an insectoidal space alien who eats babies

    Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

  111. 111
    robuzo says:

    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix: Obviously no addition to the vehicle code is necessary when it comes to driving without a license, but my understanding of the law (which of course may turn out to be flawed) is that if a DL is produced the requirement for proof of citizenship is satisfied. What happens at present when undocumented aliens are stopped and found to be driving without a license (and presumably without insurance)? Are they automatically held for immigration violation and referred to the authorities? Not sure if that is the case in AZ; it certainly doesn’t seem to be in CA or FL. Perhaps the fear of being prosecuted for immigration violations will help keep such drivers off the road.

  112. 112
    scav says:

    whew, is that one always like that or was this a special effort?!

  113. 113
    Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix says:

    @robuzo: If a person has to drive, then they will. However, it’s not true that a DL is proof of citizenship in every state. Granted, this is the case for Arizona licenses, but not for all from out of state.

    Remember, this new AZ law holds that illegal immigrants in the state are automatically committing the crime of trespassing. I don’t see how adding another crime on top of simply existing in the wrong spot can help with anything.

    If you’re guilty of a crime by simply standing there breathing, then you may as well drive without that license. You’re busted as soon as a cop talks to you anyway.

  114. 114
    Mark S. says:

    @robuzo:

    1. If you driving without a driver’s license, I’m pretty sure they throw your ass in jail. Once there, they probably check your immigration status.

    2. From what I read, an Arizona license is good enough. An out of state license probably isn’t. That’s because most states don’t require proof of citizenship to get a license.

  115. 115
    robuzo says:

    @Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix:

    Right, it isn’t in every state- nor should it be. You hardly need be a citizen to get one in most countries. A big part of the immigration problem in the US is I think the lack of national ID. Some sort of national ID, such as one that shows you are entitled to national health, similar to what is used in Japan. . .yeah, right, never mind. . .that must be shown when seeking employment would go a long way toward busting the real culprits- the people who hire undocumented workers.

    “this new AZ law holds that illegal immigrants in the state are automatically committing the crime of trespassing” I didn’t know that, and it strikes me as truly bizarre. I’m probably not following this is as closely as I should because I live overseas, in a country that requires me to have ID showing my residence status on me at all times (as has every country I have lived in other than the US), I think not unreasonably. But the trespassing thing strikes me as weird and vindictive. Thanks for cluing me in.

    Mark S “1. If you driving without a driver’s license, I’m pretty sure they throw your ass in jail. Once there, they probably check your immigration status.” So they should, although that doesn’t always seem to be the case. In any case, do the cops always refer such persons to the USCIS, and does the USCIS always act? I don’t really know. but my understand talking to California cops is that they don’t. It’s been a while, though, that may have changed.

  116. 116
    rikyrah says:

    Support is even lower among blacks than among Latinos.

    Black people, specifically Black MEN, get racially profiled EVERY DAY in this country.

    And, I don’t mean Pookey, Ray-Ray and Junebug.

    I mean, the average, everyday Black man who just wants to get up, go to work, and get back home to his family.

    Or, the young Black Male who is doing everything that America says people should do to make it.

    I just happened to ask my cousin and his college-aged friends how often they’ve been stopped by the police.

    one was entirely serious –

    ” You do mean just THIS YEAR, don’t you?”

    the only reason Black folk can fight Racial Profiling, despite being told for years it was ‘part of our imaginations’, is because it is ILLEGAL.

    Black folk have no love for the Latino community.

    But, they have been Black in America longer than 3 days.

    There is nothing in the history of Black people and Law Enforcement that would lead any thinking Black person to the conclusion I came to immediately:

    WE.ARE.NEXT.

    this is about the codification of RACIAL PROFILING INTO LAW.

    we already KNOW what Law Enforcement has done WITHOUT it being codified into law.

    not gonna find out what would happen IF it was codified into law.

    not going to go along with that ‘WHAT IF?’

  117. 117
    Ecks says:

    @Mark S.: I am a non-citizen with a MO license. How in hell would that work in Arizona if I was living there? I couldn’t drive until I became a citizen? That’s just absurd.

  118. 118
    Xenos says:

    @Jrod, Slayer of Phoenix:

    Driving without a license is already illegal, no extra laws needed.

    And when judges sentence the driver w/out license to 30 days in jail they then inquire about residency status and make referrals to the INS/ICE. The report to the feds gets done, and no police need to be involved at any point.

  119. 119
    Xenos says:

    @robuzo:

    In any case, do the cops always refer such persons to the USCIS, and does the USCIS always act? I don’t really know. but my understand talking to California cops is that they don’t. It’s been a while, though, that may have changed.

    The cops are local officials, and enforce state and local criminal laws. For reasons that are much too long and complicated to go into here, immigration is a matter of federal administrative law. Local and state police don’t know the immigration laws and they don’t want to know them – they are not empowered to enforce them anyway.

    The only way to get a really efficient immigration enforcement system involves a more powerful and well-funded federal government. Since this is the last thing the fRighties want, they have themselves to blame for much of the problem, yet they benefit politically from creating hysteria over that same problem. It is similar to the ever-revolving abortion hysteria and the ever-revolving law-n-order hysteria that besets this country.

    In the end it is all about political fundraising and activism and ways to slip racism over the transom and into the political discourse.

  120. 120
    Barry says:

    @mclaren: When you can refrain from contradicting yourself, then we’ll take you seriously. You go from ‘Republicans gaining seats’ to ‘Republicans taking Congress’.

    Do you understand that they are two different things? That the presidential party almost always loses seats in a mid-term, barring major events (impeachment, 9/11)?

    OTOH, I really, really hope that you guys will take the pick-up in 2010 as a sign that rightwingnutism is the way to go. A Palin/(fascist to be named later) ticket in 2012 should pave the way for a Democratic blow-out?

  121. 121
    Barry says:

    @robuzo: “.. but my understanding of the law (which of course may turn out to be flawed) is that if a DL is produced the requirement for proof of citizenship is satisfied”

    IIRC, there are ~10 states whose driver’s licenses would be accepted by AZ as proof of citizenship/residency. For everybody else, it’s a trip to jail.

  122. 122
    matoko_chan says:

    wait….isn’t this the blog that says race is a fantasy contruct?
    how do you do crosstabs then?

  123. 123
    Paul in KY says:

    @mclaren: You’re probably not old enough to actually remember 1980, but that’s not how it went down. We knew Reagan was a formidable candidate, Pres. Carter was behind in polling & when we didn’t get the hostages back, his goose was cooked. Also Rep. Anderson ran as a Liberal Republican (there once were some of those) to Pres. Carter’s left & that siphoned off some badly needed votes.

    I was very pissed at Pres. Carter for boycotting the Olympics. This was back in days of 3 channels & Olympics was prime Summer TV fare (I was so looking forward to kicking commie ass right in Moscow) & he took it away for nothing (so I thought then).

    Anyhoo, power to the people, etc. etc.

  124. 124

    I’m still trying to figure out how the fact that Republicans will probably pick up some seats in Congress this fall means that Balloon Juice readers are in favor of a police state.

  125. 125
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    @Paul in KY:

    You’re probably not old enough to actually remember 1980, but that’s not how it went down. We knew Reagan was a formidable candidate,

    Not going to get involved in the larger electoral argument with mclaren, but if you go back just a few more years it was definitely the case that the left sneered at the notion of Reagan being elected, much as we do today regarding Palin. By 1980 the general mood had evolved, as you say, but for most of the 70s he truly was regarded as something of a joke. Like Palin.

  126. 126
    mds says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Somewhere in China, Jon Huntsman is fiendishly smiling.

    Huh, I dunno. The linked article makes it pretty clear that he’d be looking at 2016, since otherwise he’d be running against the person he agreed to work for. But do you think that the Republican Party will have returned to sanity even by then? I used to think so, but they’ve responded to electoral repudiation by doubling down on the crazy and the purity tests. When they (inevitably) gain seats in November, they’ll take that as vindication of their obstruction and rabies approach. And they’ll have a point, if electorate are too goddamn stupid to remember who sank us all up to our necks in shit to begin with. So 2016 might yet be too early for an intelligent, sane, non-grifter Republican presidential candidate to score the nomination.

    Seriously, look at the first comment on the Huntsman article. It bemoans the fact that he won’t be available to run in 2012, when Americans will be desperate for a moderate president. Anyone who can’t accept that Barack Obama is a moderate is unlikely to actually support a moderate Republican who refuses to label Democrats as the left hand of Satan.

  127. 127
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @mds:

    To be fair, I don’t think there’s any chance Huntsman runs before 2016. But the reason I think he has to be incredibly pleased about his decision to leave for the greener pastures of Beijing for a hot minute, is that he is completely shielded away from being tainted or tarnished by the crazy factory that is the current Republican Party. And he will enjoy such protection for many more years to come.

    I have no idea what the Republican Party will look like when the electorate is shaping up for the 2016 presidential election. What I do know, however, is that Jon Huntsman should be relatively unscathed when that time rolls around. The same cannot be said for any other “serious” Republican potential contender.

  128. 128
    matoko_chan says:

    One thing for sure about 2016…..Palin will be post-menopausal.
    Unless she starts injecting blenderized fetuses or eating Fruits Chan dumplings.

  129. 129
    mds says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    What I do know, however, is that Jon Huntsman should be relatively unscathed when that time rolls around. The same cannot be said for any other “serious” Republican potential contender.

    I get that, and I do think that Huntsman looks like someone who would do really well in a general election. But he’d have to win the Republican nomination first, and I’m not sure he’d beat out someone who could spout deranged ideas in a sufficiently sane-looking fashion. I certainly hope you’re correct that “unscathed” means “not demonstrably nuts” by then. That’s a much better scenario than the median Republican voter continuing the relentless march into open [GODWIN], with the Democrats following the Overton window to the right in response, until the John Birch Society ends up on the left.

  130. 130
    Paul in KY says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.): I considered him a formidable candidate (once I saw how he was polling & how crappy things were going for Pres. Carter). As a governing president, I couldn’t believe anyone would want him as Pres, (this, of course, was before I had been exposed to GW Bush).

  131. 131
    Derek says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

    Genius!

    “Crockpots and cakes!” I’m dyin’ over here. llol

  132. 132
    mds says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.):

    Not going to get involved in the larger electoral argument with mclaren, but if you go back just a few more years it was definitely the case that the left sneered at the notion of Reagan being elected, much as we do today regarding Palin.

    Well, but if you go back a couple years further than that, the sneering at Reagan was coming from Richard Nixon. Or if not outright sneering, at least an awareness that Reagan was a hopeless loon. And if you leap all the way back to 1964, you see Barry Goldwater being crushed like a bug. So perhaps “the left” was living in the past enough to feel that what looked like a stupider version of Goldwater had the chance of a celluloid dog in Hell. Of course, this didn’t take into account that Jimmy Carter tried to treat the electorate as if they were grown-ups, while Reagan simultaneously blew morning sunshine up people’s asses and turned Nixon’s Southern strategy up to eleven. Stupid like a fox.

    All of which makes me reflect that he nonetheless supported nuclear arms reduction and an anti-torture treaty, notions which the current Republican Party labels as treason. And I shed another bitter tear for my country.

Comments are closed.