Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: So we can dispense with the idea that a congress person, or groups of congress critters "speaks" for the whole party!
Sure, if this "we" also includes you.
Though judging on how we got to to this point in the conversation, it doesn't seem likely that you want to.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
skyth wrote: And there is also the difference between the party ideaologies...Democrats allow more differences in opinions, etc...Republicans are more about uniformity.
Unless you're a pro-life Democrat, small government Democrat, or free enterprise Democrat, or evidently support the Second Amendment.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jasper76 wrote: The GOP has a losing strategy on gun reform because there is a supermajority of citizens that want something (I.e. anything at all) done in Congress to perturb these horrible massacres we see in the news. Banning No Fly Listers is something, and some measures will beat no measures. Really, the GOP/NRA need to come up with a reform proposal to satisfy public demand. I imagine the issue won't be dealt with, if it ever is, until after Obama's term.
Actually... when the bills are drafted, it's unpopular by the public.
Otherwise, you'd see something by now.
It's unpopular and it's unconstitutional. Let's not destroy our civil rights just for the sake of having the federal government take worthless ineffectual actions just for the sake of doing something.
Only if the crime is punishable by more than 6 months in jail, that leaves out a lot of crimes; depending on the State. Missouri's sexual assault laws are pretty interesting.
The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in '68... and the Democrats in 2016 are trying to push for an anti-Civil Rights bill (neutering Due Process) now...
Took that from The National Review? Or maybe The Federalist? Yeah, I read those articles too, they were awful. The NR one equated the Republican Party that Frederick Douglass was a part of with the Republican Party of today, and The Federalist one was a standard Libertarian screed.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama's effort to redeem his legacy on immigration.
The Supreme Court has thwarted President Barack Obama’s drive to expand his executive actions on immigration by making as many as five million immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally eligible for quasi-legal status and work permits.
By dividing 4-4, the justices left in place a lower court order forbidding the president from launching a new program to grant “deferred action” status to illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders.
The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama’s effort to redeem his legacy on immigration, an issue which was pushed to the back burner early in his presidency and never regained much momentum. It also leaves Obama branded by many immigration activists as the “deporter-in-chief” for overseeing the removal of more than 2.5 million migrants from the U.S.
Obama hoped to counter those perceptions with the executive-action program he created for so-called “Dreamers” in 2012 and the new one for parents, which was set to begin early last year before a federal judge in Texas halted it.
The Supreme Court decision does not signal the beginning of a new wave of deportations since the lawsuit the justices were considering focused on the benefits Obama sought to accord to qualifying immigrants, not his administration’s right to decide priorities and timing for deportations.
However, the ruling does raise questions about the validity of “deferred action” status and work permits issued to more than 700,000 immigrants in the past four years under Obama’s program for “Dreamers,” also known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or “DACA.”
Despite the profound consequences of the case for millions of immigrants and their families, the shorthanded high court's deadlock was relayed in a one-page opinion saying simply: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."
As is usual when the justices split evenly, no tally was released of how the justices voted. However, based on comments at oral arguments in the case, it appeared the justices were split along the usual ideological lines with the four Democratic appointees supportive of the legality of Obama's plan and the four Republican appointees inclined to find it went beyond his legal powers.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the even split in the case at the end of the court's release of opinions on Thursday. Roberts nonchalantly announced the result together with the deadlock in a less-prominent case Thursday relating to the jurisdiction of tribal Indian courts.
The stalemate at the Supreme Court is likely to turn up the heat further on the immigration issue in the presidential campaign. It could make the Supreme Court itself more of an issue in that contest and in Senate races around the country, as Democrats highlight the impact of the vacancy Senate Republican leaders have refused to fill since the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
Reaction from the political world was swift and, like the court, sharply split.
“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton denounced the decision, while also seeming to minimize it.
“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election,” she wrote. "Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority.”
Clinton also linked the momentous immigration ruling to the standoff over filling the seat opened by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Republicans have refused to hold a hearing or vote on Obama’s nominee for the slot, appeals court judge Merrick Garland.
“In addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our families and our country need and deserve a full bench, and Senate Republicans need to stop playing political games with our democracy and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing and vote,” Clinton said.
One Clinton aide was even more blunt about his feelings on the ruling.
““F***. Awful news,” tweeted Jesse Lehrich, a spokesman for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Other Democrats also slammed the ruling, while Republicans said they were delighted with the outcome.
“The Supreme Court tie on immigration decision is exactly why #WeNeedNine. @SCOTUSnom Garland deserves a hearing and vote,” Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) tweeted.
“Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!” Rep, Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter.
“Obama's illegal action on #immigration has been blocked! A huge win for our Constitution and for our rule of law,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) tweeted.
All-but-certain Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to revoke Obama’s actions and step up efforts to deport millions of illegal immigrants out of the U.S.
Clinton has pledged to expand Obama’s executive actions and seek a more permanent solution through Congress.
Because the new ruling doesn’t set precedent for future cases, it doesn’t slam the door on future executive actions, but it does demonstrate the perils of a president trying to act without explicit authority from Congress.
Setting aside the actual case itself, as it's irrelevant to the point I want to make, I find it annoying that the Republicans were falling all over each other in a mad rush to congratulate themselves on their "win", when they really didn't win at all. The whole problem here is that the SCdidn't decide. The Rs would be singing a completely different tune if this had gone against them; how will they act when the next big case doesn't go the way they want because of the deadlock?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama's effort to redeem his legacy on immigration.
The Supreme Court has thwarted President Barack Obama’s drive to expand his executive actions on immigration by making as many as five million immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally eligible for quasi-legal status and work permits.
By dividing 4-4, the justices left in place a lower court order forbidding the president from launching a new program to grant “deferred action” status to illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders.
The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama’s effort to redeem his legacy on immigration, an issue which was pushed to the back burner early in his presidency and never regained much momentum. It also leaves Obama branded by many immigration activists as the “deporter-in-chief” for overseeing the removal of more than 2.5 million migrants from the U.S.
Obama hoped to counter those perceptions with the executive-action program he created for so-called “Dreamers” in 2012 and the new one for parents, which was set to begin early last year before a federal judge in Texas halted it.
The Supreme Court decision does not signal the beginning of a new wave of deportations since the lawsuit the justices were considering focused on the benefits Obama sought to accord to qualifying immigrants, not his administration’s right to decide priorities and timing for deportations.
However, the ruling does raise questions about the validity of “deferred action” status and work permits issued to more than 700,000 immigrants in the past four years under Obama’s program for “Dreamers,” also known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or “DACA.”
Despite the profound consequences of the case for millions of immigrants and their families, the shorthanded high court's deadlock was relayed in a one-page opinion saying simply: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."
As is usual when the justices split evenly, no tally was released of how the justices voted. However, based on comments at oral arguments in the case, it appeared the justices were split along the usual ideological lines with the four Democratic appointees supportive of the legality of Obama's plan and the four Republican appointees inclined to find it went beyond his legal powers.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the even split in the case at the end of the court's release of opinions on Thursday. Roberts nonchalantly announced the result together with the deadlock in a less-prominent case Thursday relating to the jurisdiction of tribal Indian courts.
The stalemate at the Supreme Court is likely to turn up the heat further on the immigration issue in the presidential campaign. It could make the Supreme Court itself more of an issue in that contest and in Senate races around the country, as Democrats highlight the impact of the vacancy Senate Republican leaders have refused to fill since the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
Reaction from the political world was swift and, like the court, sharply split.
“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton denounced the decision, while also seeming to minimize it.
“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election,” she wrote. "Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority.”
Clinton also linked the momentous immigration ruling to the standoff over filling the seat opened by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Republicans have refused to hold a hearing or vote on Obama’s nominee for the slot, appeals court judge Merrick Garland.
“In addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our families and our country need and deserve a full bench, and Senate Republicans need to stop playing political games with our democracy and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing and vote,” Clinton said.
One Clinton aide was even more blunt about his feelings on the ruling.
““F***. Awful news,” tweeted Jesse Lehrich, a spokesman for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Other Democrats also slammed the ruling, while Republicans said they were delighted with the outcome.
“The Supreme Court tie on immigration decision is exactly why #WeNeedNine. @SCOTUSnom Garland deserves a hearing and vote,” Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) tweeted.
“Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!” Rep, Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter.
“Obama's illegal action on #immigration has been blocked! A huge win for our Constitution and for our rule of law,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) tweeted.
All-but-certain Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to revoke Obama’s actions and step up efforts to deport millions of illegal immigrants out of the U.S.
Clinton has pledged to expand Obama’s executive actions and seek a more permanent solution through Congress.
Because the new ruling doesn’t set precedent for future cases, it doesn’t slam the door on future executive actions, but it does demonstrate the perils of a president trying to act without explicit authority from Congress.
Setting aside the actual case itself, as it's irrelevant to the point I want to make, I find it annoying that the Republicans were falling all over each other in a mad rush to congratulate themselves on their "win", when they really didn't win at all. The whole problem here is that the SCdidn't decide. The Rs would be singing a completely different tune if this had gone against them; how will they act when the next big case doesn't go the way they want because of the deadlock?
You mean like when Democrats congratulated themselves over their "win" with Obamacare?
The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama's effort to redeem his legacy on immigration.
The Supreme Court has thwarted President Barack Obama’s drive to expand his executive actions on immigration by making as many as five million immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally eligible for quasi-legal status and work permits.
By dividing 4-4, the justices left in place a lower court order forbidding the president from launching a new program to grant “deferred action” status to illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders.
The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama’s effort to redeem his legacy on immigration, an issue which was pushed to the back burner early in his presidency and never regained much momentum. It also leaves Obama branded by many immigration activists as the “deporter-in-chief” for overseeing the removal of more than 2.5 million migrants from the U.S.
Obama hoped to counter those perceptions with the executive-action program he created for so-called “Dreamers” in 2012 and the new one for parents, which was set to begin early last year before a federal judge in Texas halted it.
The Supreme Court decision does not signal the beginning of a new wave of deportations since the lawsuit the justices were considering focused on the benefits Obama sought to accord to qualifying immigrants, not his administration’s right to decide priorities and timing for deportations.
However, the ruling does raise questions about the validity of “deferred action” status and work permits issued to more than 700,000 immigrants in the past four years under Obama’s program for “Dreamers,” also known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or “DACA.”
Despite the profound consequences of the case for millions of immigrants and their families, the shorthanded high court's deadlock was relayed in a one-page opinion saying simply: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."
As is usual when the justices split evenly, no tally was released of how the justices voted. However, based on comments at oral arguments in the case, it appeared the justices were split along the usual ideological lines with the four Democratic appointees supportive of the legality of Obama's plan and the four Republican appointees inclined to find it went beyond his legal powers.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the even split in the case at the end of the court's release of opinions on Thursday. Roberts nonchalantly announced the result together with the deadlock in a less-prominent case Thursday relating to the jurisdiction of tribal Indian courts.
The stalemate at the Supreme Court is likely to turn up the heat further on the immigration issue in the presidential campaign. It could make the Supreme Court itself more of an issue in that contest and in Senate races around the country, as Democrats highlight the impact of the vacancy Senate Republican leaders have refused to fill since the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
Reaction from the political world was swift and, like the court, sharply split.
“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton denounced the decision, while also seeming to minimize it.
“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election,” she wrote. "Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority.”
Clinton also linked the momentous immigration ruling to the standoff over filling the seat opened by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Republicans have refused to hold a hearing or vote on Obama’s nominee for the slot, appeals court judge Merrick Garland.
“In addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our families and our country need and deserve a full bench, and Senate Republicans need to stop playing political games with our democracy and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing and vote,” Clinton said.
One Clinton aide was even more blunt about his feelings on the ruling.
““F***. Awful news,” tweeted Jesse Lehrich, a spokesman for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Other Democrats also slammed the ruling, while Republicans said they were delighted with the outcome.
“The Supreme Court tie on immigration decision is exactly why #WeNeedNine. @SCOTUSnom Garland deserves a hearing and vote,” Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) tweeted.
“Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!” Rep, Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter.
“Obama's illegal action on #immigration has been blocked! A huge win for our Constitution and for our rule of law,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) tweeted.
All-but-certain Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to revoke Obama’s actions and step up efforts to deport millions of illegal immigrants out of the U.S.
Clinton has pledged to expand Obama’s executive actions and seek a more permanent solution through Congress.
Because the new ruling doesn’t set precedent for future cases, it doesn’t slam the door on future executive actions, but it does demonstrate the perils of a president trying to act without explicit authority from Congress.
Setting aside the actual case itself, as it's irrelevant to the point I want to make, I find it annoying that the Republicans were falling all over each other in a mad rush to congratulate themselves on their "win", when they really didn't win at all. The whole problem here is that the SCdidn't decide. The Rs would be singing a completely different tune if this had gone against them; how will they act when the next big case doesn't go the way they want because of the deadlock?
You mean like when Democrats congratulated themselves over their "win" with Obamacare?
It's.The.LAW!!!!
lets face it no matter which side wins, the winners will crow and losers will moan.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Only if the crime is punishable by more than 6 months in jail, that leaves out a lot of crimes; depending on the State. Missouri's sexual assault laws are pretty interesting.
The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in '68... and the Democrats in 2016 are trying to push for an anti-Civil Rights bill (neutering Due Process) now...
Took that from The National Review? Or maybe The Federalist? Yeah, I read those articles too, they were awful. The NR one equated the Republican Party that Frederick Douglass was a part of with the Republican Party of today, and The Federalist one was a standard Libertarian screed.
Neither.
Twittah.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 00:54:19
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between putting US citizens on an arbitrary and secret list without due process for the sole purpose of restricting their travel and ability to leave the country and allowing citizens to freely leave the country and travel anywhere they want except Cuba. One applies to specific individuals and bans travel and the other applies to everyone, allows travel but restricts a singular destination.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 01:12:30
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Which made that decision according to the 1st and 5th Amendments, specifically regarding travel to Communist states. If No Fly lists are Unconstitutional, then so is the embargo on Cuba; but the embargo on Cuba remains and is heavily supported.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/24 01:25:59
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Which made that decision according to the 1st and 5th Amendments, specifically regarding travel to Communist states. If No Fly lists are Unconstitutional, then so is the embargo on Cuba; but the embargo on Cuba remains and is heavily supported.
Which made that decision according to the 1st and 5th Amendments, specifically regarding travel to Communist states. If No Fly lists are Unconstitutional, then so is the embargo on Cuba; but the embargo on Cuba remains and is heavily supported.
No, you need to read the decision again. Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country. It didn't matter where they wanted to go it didn't let those people leave the country at all. The govt can't put citizens on a list for being a Communist and then not let anyone on that list travel out of the country. The Cuban embargo has nothing to do with no fly lists. The embargo isn't about putting certain citizens on a list and restriction their movements.
Asterios wrote: also you can fly to Cuba, but no flights going there, and no guerantee you will make it to Cuba after the bay of pigs fiasco.
No you can't just fly to Cuba. Even if you have your own plane you aren't allowed to go, unless you qualify for one of the exemptions to the law (and tourism is not one of them). The US has recently been a little more generous with those exemptions but it's still not something you can just decide to do on a whim.
Also, can we not act like it's still 1960? Travel to Cuba is perfectly safe and done frequently. The only obstacle to going there is US policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country.
It also has nothing to do with no-fly lists.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 03:18:34
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Asterios wrote: also you can fly to Cuba, but no flights going there, and no guerantee you will make it to Cuba after the bay of pigs fiasco.
No you can't just fly to Cuba. Even if you have your own plane you aren't allowed to go, unless you qualify for one of the exemptions to the law (and tourism is not one of them). The US has recently been a little more generous with those exemptions but it's still not something you can just decide to do on a whim.
Also, can we not act like it's still 1960? Travel to Cuba is perfectly safe and done frequently. The only obstacle to going there is US policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country.
It also has nothing to do with no-fly lists.
It has everything to do with no fly lists. Aptheker had his passport revoked and wasn't allowed a new one because he was barred from leaving the country because he was a communist. That's an unlawful restriction of his movements and the travel ban for any known communists was a no fly lists, nobody who was believed to be a communist was allowed to fly out of the country or leave the country by any other means. The unlawful traffic restrictions placed on people who were believed to be communists is no different in principle than the unlawful travel restrictions against people believed to be Muslim terrorists.
Prestor Jon wrote: It has everything to do with no fly lists. Aptheker had his passport revoked and wasn't allowed a new one because he was barred from leaving the country because he was a communist. That's an unlawful restriction of his movements and the travel ban for any known communists was a no fly lists, nobody who was believed to be a communist was allowed to fly out of the country or leave the country by any other means. The unlawful traffic restrictions placed on people who were believed to be communists is no different in principle than the unlawful travel restrictions against people believed to be Muslim terrorists.
Except there's a key difference: the Aptheker case involved a refusal to issue a passport, the no-fly list involves regulation of commercial air travel but not other forms of travel. There's pretty solid precedent that the government has much greater ability to regulate commercial airline travel than, say, taking a bus somewhere. The no-fly list is allowed under the assumption that if you're banned from traveling on commercial airline flights you can still find an alternative, if less convenient, way to get where you want to go.
(Now, whether or not the no-fly list is good policy is an entirely separate question, but it does seem to be constitutional.)
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Easy E wrote: I will say, his attack on trade deals is a great strategy.
Yeah, It's basically an enormous pile of lies heaped on top of crazy bs, but most people have almost zero economic knowledge, so yeah, as a strategy it's pretty smart.
What's interesting is that Republicans haven't ever tried anything like it before because it goes against their pro-business stance. Democrats have made noise about in the past because it plays well to their union base. But Trump's done well with the issue, so maybe this election could see it become a Republican issue. It might mark a shift in Republican strategy away from 'lies and distractions in order to cover over the party's unpopular big business policies' and towards a party that's actually just 'lies and distractions'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I didn't get very far into Trump's big speech. I stopped where he started attacking big business and jobs being sent overseas. Because, you know, Trump is big business and he sent jobs overseas.
It got worse. There were some things in there that were true, but it was maybe about 20%. The rest was big sounding claims that simply had nothing to do with reality.
It will never cease to amaze me that people who complain about how politicians who are bad are all liars will almost always end up falling for someone who tells even more blatant lies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/24 04:25:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Prestor Jon wrote: It has everything to do with no fly lists. Aptheker had his passport revoked and wasn't allowed a new one because he was barred from leaving the country because he was a communist. That's an unlawful restriction of his movements and the travel ban for any known communists was a no fly lists, nobody who was believed to be a communist was allowed to fly out of the country or leave the country by any other means. The unlawful traffic restrictions placed on people who were believed to be communists is no different in principle than the unlawful travel restrictions against people believed to be Muslim terrorists.
Except there's a key difference: the Aptheker case involved a refusal to issue a passport, the no-fly list involves regulation of commercial air travel but not other forms of travel. There's pretty solid precedent that the government has much greater ability to regulate commercial airline travel than, say, taking a bus somewhere. The no-fly list is allowed under the assumption that if you're banned from traveling on commercial airline flights you can still find an alternative, if less convenient, way to get where you want to go.
(Now, whether or not the no-fly list is good policy is an entirely separate question, but it does seem to be constitutional.)
Justice Douglas, also concurring, opined that "Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged," citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353. "War may be the occasion for serious curtailment of liberty. Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208, 89 L.Ed. 243. And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e.g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment."
Seems pretty clear to me that no fly lists are unconstitutional.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I didn't get very far into Trump's big speech. I stopped where he started attacking big business and jobs being sent overseas. Because, you know, Trump is big business and he sent jobs overseas.
It got worse. There were some things in there that were true, but it was maybe about 20%. The rest was big sounding claims that simply had nothing to do with reality.
It will never cease to amaze me that people who complain about how politicians who are bad are all liars will almost always end up falling for someone who tells even more blatant lies.
Teleprompter Trump is very different than free-swinging Trump.
That speech had so much red meat, it was gory. Maybe his speech-writer needs to run.
Trump is still so full of gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 04:28:41
Prestor Jon wrote: Seems pretty clear to me that no fly lists are unconstitutional.
Except the no-fly list doesn't keep you from traveling. You can still travel by car. You can still travel by bus. You can still travel by train. You can even travel by a chartered flight or your own private plane. You just can't get on a commercial airline flight. And it's pretty clear that restrictions on commercial air travel are permitted, based on the precedent of things like requiring passengers to show their identification papers or submit their baggage to a search by the government.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Teleprompter Trump is very different than free-swinging Trump.
Maybe. Or possibly Trump thought he could free wheel it through the general in the same way that he did in the primary... and is now learning that nonsense was an amateur sideshow, and now he needs to get serious and work with the people who've spent their professional lives working on winning elections.
That speech had so much red meat, it was gory. Maybe his speech-writer needs to run.
It was basically just a retelling of every attack the Republicans have tried on Clinton over 20 years. There was a few bits of substance, and whole lot of stuff that wandered somewhere between lies and fething crazy lies. Trump repeated it all, without any regard for accuracy or honesty, because he knows his audience.
It'll probably work in shoring up support within the Republican base. Which says some very unfortunate things about the state of the Republican base - they are united only in their agreed hate-fantasies about Democrats. It is not a good place for a political party to be in. It ends up producing candidates like Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 04:41:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Prestor Jon wrote: Seems pretty clear to me that no fly lists are unconstitutional.
Except the no-fly list doesn't keep you from traveling. You can still travel by car. You can still travel by bus. You can still travel by train. You can even travel by a chartered flight or your own private plane. You just can't get on a commercial airline flight. And it's pretty clear that restrictions on commercial air travel are permitted, based on the precedent of things like requiring passengers to show their identification papers or submit their baggage to a search by the government.
The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
Prestor Jon wrote: The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.
And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Prestor Jon wrote: The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.
And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.
Couldn't you alternatively just drive into Canada and catch a flight from there?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
