2024 Presidential Election thread

[Motown Bombers]

He's still going. 

[pfife]

Yes I am posting on the message board 

your mastery of the obvious is very impressive

congrats on the rare truthful post 

Edited June 30, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

He's still going. 

What is the only National Park in Michigan?

[Tigeraholic1]

Pfifie letting his childish side show out today........

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

What is the only National Park in Michigan?

Isle Royal. 

[pfife]

4 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Pfifie letting his childish side show out today........

Smash the ignore button if you don't like it - I couldn't give a shit less if you do.    

[pfife]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Isle Royal. 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

You win. 

Screenshots and arrows to win an e-argument. You pull out all the stops to win e-arguments. 

[pfife]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

You win. 

Screenshots and arrows to win an e-argument. You pull out all the stops to win e-arguments. 

Yes, I know.  I won again. 

It's too bad you lie so much about what you posted. 

[Motown Bombers]

8 minutes ago, pfife said:

Smash the ignore button if you don't like it - I couldn't give a shit less if you do.    

 

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

Yes, I know.  I won again. 

It's too bad you lie so much about what you posted. 

You're welcome to take your own advice. 

[pfife]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

 

You're welcome to take your own advice. 

I'm much more interested in beating you mercilessly again and again

You've had to admit I was right quite a few times since I chose to start acknowledging your existence again.  

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

I'm much more interested in beating you mercilessly again and again

You've had to admit I was right quite a few times since I chose to start acknowledging your existence again.  

Oh noes, a guy whose purpose in life is to win e-arguments may not acknowledge me. 

[pfife]

I never said it was my purpose in life- you're lying again.  

Like the lie you told about not talking about Isle Royal.

Like the lie you told about what Warren said.

Like the lie you told about me not complementing Nancy on the J6 commish

All easily disproven with screenshots and arrows.

Edited June 30, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

48 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Pfifie letting his childish side show out today........

You actually probably are one that voted for the ones that appointed at least 3 of these hacks on the scotus.   

Given that I am totally fine with your characterization of me.  Your judgment..... yeesh

Being held responsible is painful and I'm the one blaming the GOP for the GOPs authoritarianism and not the left.

Edited June 30, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, pfife said:

Furthermore, even though it's a technicality to look at what someone actually said when discussing what was actually said...... she said this in the context of declaring a medical emergency.

the only way you get legal abortion in a national park would be for the Federal Gov to pass a federal abortion statute that superseded state law even in a proprietary jurisdiction and I'm not even clear that would work because you'd still have to argue that law has something to do with the Federal purpose in owning the property as a forest reserve, but then you are right back to the need to get a bill through the Senate anyway, and if you can do that you can pass a national law for everywhere - you don't need federal land. As for an emergency declaration, if COVID didn't pass muster with the courts as an emergency, abortions sure won't. 

Look I will grant you till the cows come home Warren said exactly what you said she said, I'm just saying she's flat wrong *if* she took 'federal land' to mean 'forests' and not just 'parks' and other federal reservations with total federal jurisdiction. Pres couldn't do it.

Edited July 1, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

I will accept that I was right yet again.  Thank you.  However, it's sad that the board would rather call me names than google the damn quote themselves.   And then one poster googled the quote they literally called it a quote from Warren when it was nothing of the sort - it was literally a quote from someone else.   The dishonesty is very high in this forum right now - to the point where accurately quoting someone is a "technicality".   If it's childish to call it out, so be it.   Someone's gotta call out the bullshit.  Sad that no one else seems to give a fuck.  I guess you all would rather just admit that I'm right.   Repeatedly.  

Regarding something other than me being right.... yet again.....

Trump declared his state of emergency on the border wall in February 2019.   It was approximately 1 year before COVID was an issue in the US.  Why are you referring to COVID as the case for emergency and drawing inferences from that to the current situation?   

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/national-emergency-trump.html

My argument is the reason for emergency need not even be an actual emergency - as Trump showed.

Also- can you post what you're referring to regarding COVID not passing muster in courts as a reason for declaring emergency?  Are you referring to Whitmer's power to declare state of emergency re: covid?

I also don't know if I can buy what you're selling me on the law here b/c you told me earlier this morning that states had "full authority"  - your wording-  over these lands and you have since scaled that "full authority" back on at least two different occasions now (this one just above, and one I already asked about) with little to no explanation of this change in your presentation of the jurisdiction of these lands.   Under normal circumstances I would buy what your selling no problem, but given your unexplained shifts here, and also that you built it on a false representation of Warren's quote - even after I said multiple times it was not her quote.   Thus,  I am unable to purchase at this time.   Plus I'm a child with no money. 

Furthermore - what's the downside for trying this, regardless of your shifting notion of who has full authority or not over these lands and your assessment of legal viability of the idea? I'd argue that having a choice to get an abortion in Isle Royal is better than not having the choice whatsoever.

The reason I brought up that she said lands and not parks wasn't based on the ability to get abortions in one and not the other -  you're the one arguing that front.  It was because you and Motown Bombed trashed the idea b/c it meant Michiganders and also Michiganians would have to go to a remote uninhabited island in Lake Superior.   That, of course was totally inaccurate based on a total inaccuracy in what she said.   Inaccuracies, mind you - pushed by a purported Democrat who purports to not trash Democrats/their voters/their policies (even though I quoted 8 messages of him doing exactly that just today).  

I'm pretty shocked you decided to eat from his bullshit trough today.  

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

42 minutes ago, pfife said:

Michiganians would have to go to a remote uninhabited island in Lake Superior

no, not an uninhabited island in Lake Superior, a US National Park in Lake Superior. The only full federal jurisdiction piece of land in the State of Mi. I gave you the link to start to educate yourself, I'm not selling anything. You can either read and learn or not. No skin off my nose. Have nice evening.

Edited July 1, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

You are selling something - you're selling your opinion that this can't be done b/c of the jurisdiction of the land.

We're 3 years removed from a president declaring a state of emergency and used that not to override a law- but to override the constitutional article that the Congress controls the purse.  I didn't make the game or the rules, but those are the rules and that is the game- we all saw it with our own eyes.

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

You are selling something - you're selling your opinion that this can't be done b/c of the jurisdiction of the land.

if you call putting some facts and reference to a US forest service manual about police powers on the table a sale, you'll have to accept that it's being done at no charge. 

[pfife]

So a president can declare an emergency and steal the constitutional power of the purse from Congress, but a president can't declare a state of emergency and disregard the US forest service manual? 

that is one powerful document.

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

you assume that because Trump could get away with it, Biden can. But you know the rules are different. You won't get abortion as an emergency past a Federal judge and if you did this SCOTUS would overrule them quickly anyway. Progressives have their hair on fire and are throwing everything they can think of against the wall, hoping to find something that might stick. This one has a much better chance if they try it inside  military bases, or even inside national parks, where Federal law is already the controlling criminal code than in an area like the national forest, where it isn't, which was MB's original and still valid point and thus the reference about Isle Royale national park, even if it was only mentioned by name by me after he had alluded to it by geographical reference.

Edited July 1, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

The transcript of the podcast you posted:

https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3

mentioned the following federal properties we hadn't considered:  post offices, veterans hospitals, research facilities, military installations.  

Here's who makes the rules for proprietary owned lands- congress gave the power to the Executive Branch.

Quote

Perry: Millions of acres of national forest lands are considered to be proprietary jurisdiction. To help protect the valuable national resources found within, Congress has given the Department of Agriculture, through the U.S. Forest Service, power to enact regulations to control use and protect those national forest lands. There are laws found in the Code of Federal Regulations that require visitors to national forests to obey standard rules of behavior, for example to avoid damaging public property, and to get permits before taking or altering any natural features found in the forest.

For exclusive owned lands:

Quote

Solari: Ok, so that's proprietary jurisdiction. What are the other two categories of jurisdiction under which the government owns land?

Perry: The United States can also own land under either exclusive or concurrent legislative jurisdiction. These categories are basically self-explanatory. If land is owned exclusively, the federal government takes over all the law enforcement responsibilities. Federal officers and agents are responsible for handling all investigations and cases, and the local police do not come onto the facility to investigate or arrest suspects. The only power the non law enforcement officers would have in an area of exclusive jurisdiction would be to serve process, in other words, summons or subpoenas.

 

 

More on Concurrent, they don't say who makes the regulations, but they do say that feds can patrol so it's fair to infer the feds can make the rules on these lands too:

Quote

 

Solari: So then what is the third category of jurisdiction?

Perry: Concurrent legislative jurisdiction is the third type. It is considered partial jurisdiction because the federal government shares law enforcement responsibilities with the state and the local officers. In other words, should a crime occur on area owned concurrently with the state, either a federal law enforcement agency or a state or local law enforcement agency can respond, they can investigate, arrest and charge the suspect. If the federal officer or agent handles the case, that suspect will be tried in federal court. If arrested and charged by a state or local officer, the case will instead go to state or local court.

 

 

So in summary, based on the link you posted:  https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3, all three categories seem to be at least partially under the jurisdiction of the federal government:

Proprietary:   Congress has regulatory jurisdiction, and they ceded it to Exec branch  Ag Dept

Exclusive:   Feds can enforce laws there

Concurrent:  Feds can enforce laws there 

I've now educated myself from your link and frankly the feds seem to have more jurisdiction than you claimed.   

At one point you claimed state had full authority (your words) and in this article NONE of the three types of federal land ownership say the state had full authority - they don't even come close:

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

State law has full authority in the national forest land. Isle Royale is the only “National Park” in MI. I think Old Fort Wayne in Det was a Federal compound at one time-WWII era- but I don’t think it is any more. 

National forest was proprietary ownership which the article you posted said was regulated by congress, ceded to Ag Dept.

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you assume that because Trump could get away with it, Biden can. But you know the rules are different. You won't get abortion as an emergency past a Federal judge and if you did this SCOTUS would overrule them quickly anyway. Progressives have their hair on fire and are throwing everything they can think of against the wall, hoping to find something that might stick. This one has a much better chance if they try it inside  military bases, or even inside national parks, where Federal law is already the controlling criminal code than in an area like the national forest, where it isn't, which was MB's original and still valid point and thus the reference about Isle Royale national park, even if it was only mentioned by name by me after he had alluded to it by geographical reference.

Your article said national forests were proprietary ownership, which is regulated by Congress, who ceded the power to the Ag Department.  Nowhere did that article support your claims from earlier today that national forests were full authority of the states - in fact, it said the opposite.

Also since Military bases are included same as Isle Royal , as you just ceded, that means the point about having to go to Isle Royal was NOT valid as you just claimed.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, pfife said:

At one point you claimed state had full authority (your words) and in this article NONE of the three types of federal land ownership say the state had full authority - they don't even come close:

if a shooting occurs in the national forest, the county or state police have full authority to use all their police powers to apprehend, and prosecute that crime. They don't share it with the FBI. The limitation is not on the police powers of the locals, it's on what they enforce. Rules and regs that are a matter of specific relevance to the operation of the forest - who can take out timber, who can be in the forest campground and when, are enforced by the rangers - but those are not matters of local law, so the locals would have nothing to do with enforcement of those those things. That is the sense in which jurisdiction is shared. I will stand by my statement that the locals have full police powers in the nat forest to enforce local/state statutes. Abortion is now clearly a matter of state law and the State police would have full authority to enforce a State's abortion law in the national forest.

Edited July 1, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

The government could just subsidize a bus ticket to Canada or Chicago instead of pop up abortion clinics in the middle of Lake Superior or a post office.