Spinner wrote: Probably another indefinite ban, because, frankly, our refugee vetting process is already pretty extensive.
The whole thing probably need review... in some cases, it's probably too extensive.
"This thing I talked about in the middle of the election isn't ready yet because I have no idea what I'm doing" is also hardly an encouraging excuse.
The really big problem here, imo, is with Trump's EOs is that he appears to be issuing them without consultation from the Depts and agencies that must implement.
...
That is because Trump doesn't have any relevant training or experience. His business knowledge might help, but he is a failure, cheat and shyster as a businessman. His big success is being a reality TV star, a role ironically that has practically nothing to do with real reality. Maybe this is where alternative facts come from.
On top of this, Trump is vapid, narcissistic, ill-informed, biased, has a short attention span, and, as a Republican, by faith despises the civil servants whose jobs it is to gather, collate, analyse and present relevant information.
But all that doesn't matter. The really important thing is that everyone who voted Trump because they were sickened by liberals whining on about safe spaces and LGBTAUIQNNES can now enjoy the liberal outrage and tears as thousands of actual real live people suffer worry, grief, family dislocation and the threat of injury and death.
But ALL THAT doesn't matter either. The REALLY important thing is that the number of muslim terrorist attacks in the USA committed by refugees will be temporarily reduced from zero to... er... 23?
Never mind. On the plus side, perhaps all this kerfuffle will delay the next random mass shooting incident.
No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...
It isn't like Sunni DaIsh are the only killers, the Hez brigades backing Assad do their fair share too. There are Shia safe havens in Iran and Iraq as well (in theater) if they are not comfortable in the areas of Syria secured by Hez and the Russians. The Christian refugees have been consistently treated like gak everywhere in the region they go.
Now the USA is going to treat the Muslim refugees like gak.
No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...
It isn't like Sunni DaIsh are the only killers, the Hez brigades backing Assad do their fair share too. There are Shia safe havens in Iran and Iraq as well (in theater) if they are not comfortable in the areas of Syria secured by Hez and the Russians. The Christian refugees have been consistently treated like gak everywhere in the region they go.
So... Trump just signed an EO instructing the DoD to develop plans to defeat ISIS...
I gotta admit... I like how Trump & Mattis are talking about destroying the gak out of ISIS, not merely 'containing' the threat or 'degrading' it.
My only ask, is what do we do with the vacuum once ISIS is obliterated???
LOL! You think ISIL is going to be obliterated? Good luck with that.
Maybe it could be done if we could gather all the relevant religious people into camps where alternative arrangements for their future lives could be worked through.
It would be a huge bureaucratic project, but if you are going to build a $40 billion wall along your border with Mexico, it surely must be possible.
LordofHats wrote: They didn't even have enough scientists between the politicization of academics and trying to figure out physics without using "Jewish Physics"
That was basically my point: trying very hard to kill/deport/push away intelligent people that have a lot to bring to your country is a very bad idea. Hopefully we in Europe will get those. Carry on. (BTW Dakka people, consider yourself invited .)
What do you guys think about Trump's new restrictions on lobbying? It seems like a good move to me, but as always I wonder if there's a subtext I'm missing.
I read the comment on that article. Woah. It's… interesting. I would bet a lot of money that none of those works in technical position of the companies they criticize, and that none of them as the slightest shadow of an hint of a skill that could allow them to.
In before the Dakka trump defense team comes in and tries to handwave it away
Let's not get too excited here, nobody has even stated that the cause of the fire was arson at all. I hate Trump and his deplorables as much as anyone, but so far there is no reason to blame them for this.
But ALL THAT doesn't matter either. The REALLY important thing is that the number of muslim terrorist attacks in the USA committed by refugees will be temporarily reduced from zero to... er... 23?
Yeah, it seems that the whole thing is useless from a national security point of view. The numbers are next to zero to begin with (found it and here, also this), on the other hand there's this map which is surely a complete coincidence. If even Cheney is against your plan to ban muslims then you have to be quite a failure as a human being. And this is apparently how the US does government from now on?
Never mind. On the plus side, perhaps all this kerfuffle will delay the next random mass shooting incident.
Well …, maybe banning white guys from America could solve the problem? Or how about just "banning" lawnmowers or guns? That would save more lives than banning muslims (source). But, for some reason, these deaths are not as good as "muslims" at creating a discussion of the worthiness of a ban.
Lord Bannon of House Breitbart appointed to National Security Council. Director of National Intelligence and Joint Chiefs, meanwhile, are now out unless the chairman decides the meeting pertains to their responsibilities.
I mean at this stage the WTF's are coming so thick & fast I barely understand what's up at any given moment - are we at the point where we can start using the F word unironically yet, or do we have to wait until he's literally strutting around the White House lawn in full uniform with aviator sunglasses demanding everyone call him Generalissimo?
In before the Dakka trump defense team comes in and tries to handwave it away
Let's not get too excited here, nobody has even stated that the cause of the fire was arson at all. I hate Trump and his deplorables as much as anyone, but so far there is no reason to blame them for this.
Not directly related, but there's stuff like this. Hint: it's about an alt-right Neo-Nazi who tried to burn down churches with predominantly black congregations :/
If we were to treat this like some the generalisations we were privileged to read about BLM supporters then that would imply that the Neo-nazis, sorry…alt-right doofuses, are all racially motivated arsonists.
Update 9:49 p.m.: Protesters continue to fill Terminal 5 as at least 12 people are reportedly still detained.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel called for a list from the federal government of names anyone being detained at O'Hare or Midway and urged the release of anyone "unjustly affected." View image on Twitter View image on Twitter Follow ChicagosMayor ✔ @ChicagosMayor Mayor's statement this evening calls on the federal government to identify those unjustly detained & provide immediate access to counsel. 10:48 PM - 28 Jan 2017 68 68 Retweets 83 83 likes Update: A federal judge ordered an emergency stay that allows those who have landed with visas to stay. 1h agitator in chief @soit_goes Hunreds are protesting Trump's #MuslimBan inside O'Hare Airport & thousands are holidng the streets outside | #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/SaOPxrnODl Follow agitator in chief @soit_goes #NoBanNoWall protesters at Chicago's O'Hare airport announce the temporary stay & that they plan to keep fighting Trump's #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/GObB084UA2 10:08 PM - 28 Jan 2017
30 30 Retweets 65 65 likes Original: Confusion and outrage continue to build across the nation in the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order that blocks refugees from entering the United States and bans all people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Trump and his loyalists have said the order, which bans travel to the U.S. from those countries for at least 90 days and suspends the refugee program for 120, will help to fight terrorism. Critics and other more rational people, however, have said that the order not only undermines US security at home and abroad, but widely discriminates against Muslims and others from the Middle East. The order was also signed while many refugee families and others targeted by the ban were already in transit to the United States, causing people to become stranded or detained at airports around the country. A man, woman and their young child who were traveling from Iran were detained at O'Hare on Saturday, before eventually being released. The man, Hessam Noorian, a green card holder and Park Ridge resident, was detained for five hours. As of 8 p.m. on Saturday, there were between 12 and 14 people being detained, all of whom reportedly had legal status in the country. More than a dozen lawyers were on hand at the airport after a request was issued by immigrants-rights lawyers organizations. U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky was also working to secure the release of detainees. As many as 18 people were detained, including legal permanent residents and two babies, according to U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth. Duckworth said in a statement: "I wish the President had realized that governing in a fair and just manner is harder than rallying crowds with catchphrases before human lives were affected, as they were by today's needless and dehumanizing detentions at O'Hare and airports around the country. Stopping legal permanent residents and babies simply because of where they're from is not the American way and it doesn't make us safer. This Muslim ban must end." View image on Twitter View image on Twitter Follow Joe Brady @JoeBrady3 This man is waiting for detained family members at O'Hare. They have dual Citzenship. #NoBanNoWallChi 4:49 PM - 28 Jan 2017 9 9 Retweets 11 11 likes “Today we stand with our Syrian brothers and sisters, the Muslim community and all those refugees and immigrants who are being used as scapegoats by the current administration,” said Lawrence Benito, chief executive officer of Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights in a statement yesterday. “We will push back against this and other executive orders and will not give into the rhetoric of a fear and nationalism. Our communities are strong, diverse and resilient. We are here to support each other and we are here to stay.” A heartbreaking scene played out yesterday at O’Hare Airport as when a group of co-sponsors tweeted out a group photo awaiting one of the last Syrian families to enter the country. Local opponents of Trump’s ban, which interestingly does not include several Muslim-majority countries where he has business dealings, are gathering at Terminal 5 at O’Hare for a protest and vigil to support those affected by it. “By protesting President Trump’s blatantly discriminatory order hundreds of Chicagoans will show our city rejects his bigotry,” said the Arab American Action Network in a joint press release with several other local immigrants rights organizations. While the action did not officially begin until 6:00 p.m. people began gathering at the airport as early as 4 p.m. More than a thousand people protested at the airport, demonstrating at Terminal 5 and marching inside the O'Hare terminal. CTA trains were flooded with people heading to the action early on Saturday evening.
Follow #FreeBresha @abanksharris "no hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here!" #NoBanNoWallCHI #NoBanNoWall 7:30 PM - 28 Jan 2017 35 35 Retweets 44 44 likes
Follow The Chicago Reporter @ChicagoReporter #Live: More footage of the growing protest outside O'Hare airport ag. Trump's immigration bans, chanting refugees are welcome. #MuslimbanChi 8:00 PM - 28 Jan 2017 · Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) 106 106 Retweets 88 88 likes
Follow Christopher Jobson @christopherjobs Thousands of protestors at O’Hare terminal 5 #muslimban protest. “No hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here.“ 7:42 PM - 28 Jan 2017 1,408 1,408 Retweets 1,868 1,868 likes
Follow Chris Hush ✔ @ChrisHushNBC NOW: Rally moving outside of #Chicago O'Hare airport. Several dozen protesting immigration ban. Lawyers: 10 detainees so far @nbcchicago 6:31 PM - 28 Jan 2017 111 111 Retweets 74 74 likes Traffic was snarled at Terminal 5 as protesters marched through lanes, blocked vehicles from passing and chanted "Our streets!"
Hundreds of protesters erupted in cheers Saturday night as they learned that a federal judge in Brooklyn blocked part of President Donald Trump's travel ban, preventing immigrants detained at JFK and other U.S. airports from being deported. The temporary injunction from U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly also requires the government to provide a list of the names of people detained. "Trump and Dump" Turns Tweets Into Donations At least 10 people remained detained at JFK Saturday, two others were released before the judge's ruling. The nationwide stay doesn't mean they will be released, only that they won't be deported. “This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off U.S. soil," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the case. Trump Immigration Order Triggers Protests at US AirportsTrump Immigration Order Triggers Protests at US Airports Crowds gathered at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn where the American Civil Liberties Union argued for the nationwide stay. As lawyers emerged from court, the crowd broke out in chants of "Yes we can, yes we can." Hillary Clinton tweeted about the protests late Saturday, saying: "I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are." The protest had largely shifted to the courthouse from John F. Kennedy International Airport, where people gathered for a daylong protest that at times had more than 300 people. They held homemade signs that read "No ban, no wall" and "Refugees welcome" in front of Terminal 4's international arrivals area. One sign called for President Trump's impeachment and the deportation of the first lady. Trump, Putin Discuss 'Mutually Beneficial' Trade, ISIS "We're here to tell Trump that we are not going anywhere," said lawyer and refugee advocate Jacki Esposito, who helped organize the protest. "Today is the beginning of a long opposition from us, and our neighbors all over the country." US Suspends Immigration Program Helping Non-Muslim Iranians Trump said the halt in the refugee program was necessary to give agencies time to develop a stricter screening system. His executive order also banned refugees from Syria indefinitely, and put in place an immediate 90-day ban for all immigration to the U.S. from the seven Muslim-majority nations. One of the people detained at JFK was Hameed Jhalid Darweesh, who worked with the U.S. in Iraq in a number of roles, including as an interpreter for the U.S. army. He had been targeted twice for working with the U.S. military, according to The New York Times. Iraqi Man Detained at JFK Airport Released Nearly four hours after news of the detainment broke, U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler announced that Darweesh was released from custody. After he was freed Saturday, Darweesh told a waiting crowd: "We know America is the land of freedom, the land of freedom, the land of light. I am very thankful and very happy. "America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world." He said that he came with his family and they were separated while he was detained. His family was released while he was held. A second Iraqi refugee detained was detained later Saturday, the immigrant rights group Make the Road said. That left 10 refugees in custody at JFK. The New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) joined the protest, drawing attention to the anti-Muslim violence suffered by their Sikh and non-Muslim brown drivers. Taxi drivers didn't pick up passengers from 6 p.m.-7p.m. at JFK in solidarity with protesters, the union tweeted. "Today, drivers are joining the protest at JFK Airport in support of all those who are currently being detained #NoBanNoWall," the nonprofit organization tweeted. NYTWA added that the executive orders puts professional drivers and its members, many of who are Muslim, in more danger since 9/11, when hate crimes against Muslims skyrocketed. "By sanctioning bigotry with his unconstitutional and [sic] inhumane executive order, the president is putting professional drivers in more danger than they have been in any time since 9/11," the organization said in a statement Saturday. Reps. Nadler and Nydia Velazquez met with Customs and Border Patrol supervisors at the airport as the two worked to provide legal access to the detainees. "These are people who are no threat to the United States and who have worked with the armed forces for years and who were given visas on those basis," Nadler said. "It is shameful not to mention [that they've worked with the US for years] and probably implies religious discrimination." "It is a sad day for the American people. This is not who we are, this is an affront to our American values," said Velazquez. "This is a matter of life and death. These types of actions undermine our national security, and our president, Donald Trump, doesn't get it." In a statement posted to his Twitter account, Gov. Andrew Cuomo called the words inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty to remind people that America is a melting pot, not a divider, of cultures. "We are a nation of bridges, not walls, and a great many of us still believe the words 'give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...'," he said. "This is not who we are. And not who we should be." Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said his staff had been in touch with lawyers for the refugees and would provide legal assistance to them. "I will do everything in my power to help those who have been victimized by President Trump's discriminatory and dangerous executive action," Schneiderman said. The protests disrupted traffic at the airport. The Port Authority said there would be no taxi pick-ups or drop-offs until 8 p.m. and travelers should make alternate plans. The Port Authority suspended AirTrain service to the airport, but Cuomo ordered the agency to reverse its decision and restore service. He also told the MTA and state police to assist with the transportation and security of the protesters. "The people of New York will have their voices heard," Cuomo said in a statement.
We are seeing more protests than I Think we have ever seen. Remember my sleeping giant comment.... Well. Looks like the US is waking up and they are not happy about the least popular new president in history.
I think we all agree that this ban on muslims for the 90 days is unconstitutional and is an overreach of executive power. The factt hat states are now fighting back is making me quite happy to be american but sad we have to do this in the first place.
A federal judge in New York has issued an emergency stay temporarily halting the removal of individuals detained after President Trump issued an order to ban immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.
The move appears to mark the first successful legal challenge to the Trump administration and affects those who have arrived in the U.S. with previously approved refugee applications or were in transit with valid visas.
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday after Trump signed his order.
Donnelly, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama and confirmed to her judgeship in 2015, ruled in the Eastern District of New York that "there is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject" to Trump's order.
“This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off U.S. soil," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
The ruling deals with a portion of Trump's order handed down Friday, which bars Syrian refugees indefinitely and halts the resettlement of all refugees for four months as the administration reviews the vetting process.
The order also denies entry for 90 days for individuals from seven predominantly Muslims countries: Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen.
“Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement.
"Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.”
The order Saturday evening capped off a chaotic first day following Trump's directive, as the administration moved to implement his order, with reports emerging of individuals being detained at a number of airports across the country.
The Department of Homeland Security said Trump's order would apply to green card holders from the seven impacted countries.
"President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but it’s unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry," Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) said in a statement.
A senior administration official said green card holders from the countries who are currently outside the U.S. will need a case-by-case waiver to return to the U.S. and green card holders in the U.S. would need to meet with a consular officer before leaving the country.
An administration official also said that Trump advisers had been in contact with the State Department and Department of Homeland Security for weeks prior to the issuing of his Friday order, arguing it affected a "relatively small" number of people.
"It’s important to keep in mind that no person living or residing overseas has a right to entry to the U.S.," the official said.
But backlash on Saturday to the order was swift from civil-rights groups, businesses and various Democratic officials, which condemned it as a departure from the U.S. tradition of accepting refugees and comparing it to Trump's campaign proposal to temporarily ban Muslim migrants. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) slammed Trump’s executive order outside JFK where she and fellow Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) worked to secure release of the two Iraqi men, calling it “arbitrary” and “unjust.”
Democrats also pressed the Trump administration for further explanation on the order, with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on the Department of Homeland Security to immediate "rescind" it.
"It's not a Muslim ban, but we are totally prepared," Trump told media gathered in the Oval Office on Saturday afternoon as he signed three new executive orders on lobbying, a plan to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and a reorganization of the National Security Council.
"It's working out very nicely. You see it in the airports, you see it all over. It's working out very nicely and we are going to have a very, very strict ban and we are going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years," Trump said.
Updated: 10:41 p.m.
We are a nation of bridges, not walls. This is not who we are. And not who we should be.
Just from this wake we can see the largest dissent that I think we haven't seen since the civil rights era!
In before the Dakka trump defense team comes in and tries to handwave it away
Let's not get too excited here, nobody has even stated that the cause of the fire was arson at all. I hate Trump and his deplorables as much as anyone, but so far there is no reason to blame them for this.
Is anyone else contemplating what they will tell the History Channel documentarists fifty years from now? I'm practicing my haunted 'we didn't know' look.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Is anyone else contemplating what they will tell the History Channel documentarists fifty years from now? I'm practicing my haunted 'we didn't know' look.
Hah, "documentarists." It's all literal junk and aliens on now, goodness knows what'll pass for 'history' in 2070.
NinthMusketeer wrote: What do you guys think about Trump's new restrictions on lobbying? It seems like a good move to me, but as always I wonder if there's a subtext I'm missing.
The subtext is that it's bs.... as it has no enforcement mechanisms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: Lord Bannon of House Breitbart appointed to National Security Council. Director of National Intelligence and Joint Chiefs, meanwhile, are now out unless the chairman decides the meeting pertains to their responsibilities.
I mean at this stage the WTF's are coming so thick & fast I barely understand what's up at any given moment - are we at the point where we can start using the F word unironically yet, or do we have to wait until he's literally strutting around the White House lawn in full uniform with aviator sunglasses demanding everyone call him Generalissimo?
I haven't seen the full detail on that... as, that EO is to reorganize the NSC and DNI. That's the thing... what exactly are they do here?
As for Bannon... meh... he's Trumpesto's advisor. Previous Presidents elevated certain advisors, who didn't have nat sec background, to this type of role.
I'm more curious about the NSC/DNI reogranization...
I'm glad he did this flight ban so early. All this stuff people said was just campain talk, all the people in the news and on the internet who said "wait and see what he actually does". 7 days in and he has shown what he does.
How he reacts to the judge will be interesting. I doubt it will be positive, and I would put good money that the reaction from some of his more extreme supporters is going to be reasonable and peaceful. Lets hope I am wrong, as that could end badly. This next month is going to be interesting.
China military official says war with US under Donald Trump 'becoming practical reality
War with the US under Donald Trump is “not just a slogan” and becoming a “practical reality”, a senior Chinese military official has said.
The remarks were published on the People’s Liberation Army website, apparently in response to the aggressive rhetoric towards China from America's new administration.
They communicated a view from inside the Central Military Commission, which has overall authority of China’s armed forces.
Quoted in the South China Morning Post, the official from the Commission’s Defence Mobilisation Department wrote: “A war ‘within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality.”
The official also called for military deployments in the tense South and East China Seas and for a missile defence system to guard the Korean peninsula, another regional hotspot, the Post reported.
The US should also reconsider its strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, the official wrote.
Mr Trump and members of his administration have consistently voiced a hard line against China. Mr Trump has branded the country a “currency manipulator” and accusing the country of underhand trading and economic tactics.
But more significantly in security terms, Mr Trump has also ignored the US’s longstanding ‘One China’ policy, publicly engaging with the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, in a move that was hugely antagonising for Beijing.
China strongly regards Taiwan as part of its territory and the US has tacitly respected this for decades, but Mr Trump signalled a departure from this policy.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also advocated a US naval blockade of artificial Chinese islands in the South China Sea – which Beijing could interpret as an act of war.
Further suggestions China is preparing for conflict emerged this week, with unconfirmed reports the military has moved long range missiles closer to the north east border in Heilongjiang province -- within firing range of the US.
Chinese social media has carried pictures claiming to show the Dongfeng-41 advanced intercontinental ballistic missile system near the Russian border.
Provocative state-run tabloid The Global Times suggested the People’s Liberation Army could have leaked the photos on social media as a warning to Mr Trump.
However, Chinese President Xi Jinping has also recently called for the reduction of nuclear weapons.
That is... Not good. I think everyone understands the Chinese obsession with saving face (even if most people don't entirely understand what it means), and the lengths the Chinese government will go too to avoid losing face. Previously governments have been very good at working with the Chinese government in a positive way. At times the west has possibly been a bit to reticent at times, but over all things have moved forward. Not it seems Trump lacks the diplomatic skills, and is going to get in a huge heap of problems.
The question is is this just saber rattling from the Chinese or will they follow through if Trump, for example, starts pushing on issues like the South China Sea?
Steve steveson wrote: The question is is this just saber rattling from the Chinese or will they follow through if Trump, for example, starts pushing on issues like the South China Sea?
Probably just saber-rattling, hoping to take advantage of Trump's incompetence. China cares a lot about their image, but probably not to the point of committing national suicide. A shooting war with China ends in one of two things:
1) Nuclear war, end of civilization as we know it. China is wiped off the map, the US suffers horrifying losses, and the resulting chaos is a nightmare for everyone else.
or
2) Conventional war where the US wrecks everything China has and Russia gets to redraw their border to annex whatever they feel like owning. The US can't invade and occupy China, but China can't invade and occupy the US either and is almost certainly going to suffer heavier losses in any potential fight.
More likely, if Trump doesn't back down, is China getting economic revenge. They certainly have enough economic influence over the US to make us (literally) pay for the insult, and can do it in a very public manner that makes it clear that Trump earned it.
Steve steveson wrote: The question is is this just saber rattling from the Chinese or will they follow through if Trump, for example, starts pushing on issues like the South China Sea?
Probably just saber-rattling, hoping to take advantage of Trump's incompetence. China cares a lot about their image, but probably not to the point of committing national suicide. A shooting war with China ends in one of two things:
I doubt we are going to jump to a sudden declaration of war with troops suddenly marching in or a pearl harbour type attack, but I can see China pushing its expansionism in the South China Sea, Trump insisting on more and more interventions from the navy, eventually resulting in a shot being accidentally fired, or prisoners being taken. You then need good diplomacy to get out with both sides feeling happy. This is where Trump will struggle. Rather than trying to calm things and letting both sides back away gracefully I could see him on twitter demanding retribution.
If I remember right, from some UK documentaries I watched (I think it might have been Christopher Meyer), China really is a weird one. And, more importantly, one that requires far more subtlety to deal with than I think the current USA administration is, quite simply, capable of doing.
In this documentary I watched, for example, it talks about China's opinion of the UK and how, for example, the classic 'long memory' concept of China very much still regards the UK of having direct "rebuilding the Empire" ambitions and that the Commonwealth is more than a group of countries that occassionally hang out to race each other...
As such, China always tends to deal with us with heavy suspicion, half expecting us to always have some gigantic hidden master plan to screw them over.
reds8n wrote: ... Presumably if we/Europe/similar do get involved Russia would just cut off the energy supplies from the east.
Plus, unbelievable is it it to type almost, I'm not sure there's enough support for Trump/USA in Europe at the moment.
Against China.
Would Europe get involved? We've just been called obsolete and the US has threatened to leave NATO. And in the face of what can be considered US aggression would we even have to? Its a mutual defence pact, not a military alliance to wage war.
err... IIRC 9/11 was seen as sufficient justification for NATO members to be called upon.
-- and I have no issue there it was a terrible thing.
But thinking about all the Chinese money in the UK alone..
.. are they the ones supposedly building our next/new Nuclear power stations ?
Assuming indeed there even is a NATO of course.
Trump seems to flip flop on this depending upon who he talks to.
... ..and TBF I think the USA has cause to say that some of the NATO members need to step their game up and contribute more both manpower and $/£/whatever wise.
reds8n wrote: .. and are people going to be able to believe anything that comes from the Whitehouse Press office ?
If Spicer/Conway needs to come out and tell us/the world that, say, China opened fire or provoked a physical confrontation will anyone believe them ?
Considering we've been shown we can't even trust on insignificant stuff like how many people attended the inauguration ceremony, I suspect few will, outside of the roughly 60 million (and shrinking) true-believers in the US.
reds8n wrote: err... IIRC 9/11 was seen as sufficient justification for NATO members to be called upon.
-- and I have no issue there it was a terrible thing.
And it was clearly an unprovoked attack against the American people.
... ..and TBF I think the USA has cause to say that some of the NATO members need to step their game up and contribute more both manpower and $/£/whatever wise.
And again no argument there, however provoking China and thereby creating or playing into a situation in which they are a 'victim' is not going to play well for invoking the mutual defence/aid detailed in the treaty.
China has always maintained a slow burn, long term view of international affairs. It's pervaded their dealings with the West since more or less time immemorable; their culture is not one which appreciates short, sharp shocks.
In contemporary terms, that has been equivalent to gradually growing economic and military dominance locally. The idea being that if they acquire those things slowly, with the pressure being almost imperceptible over several decades, the West will almost always give way slightly on most issues rather than risk any sort of direct conflict. Then it's all change in the governments of the West every five-ten years, and the minor advances in Chinese position are regarded as the new status quo abroad so new minor advances can be made.
It's the advantage of central planning and autocracy over what is effectively the short-termist risk averse political structures we have here in the West. But it has its own flaws, namely that it cannot react well to sudden, sharp changes in short-term circumstance.
The problem is that the Chinese position is still nowhere near strong enough currently to conceivably militarily smack down the US even locally at this stage. They've done their best to develop carrier killer missiles, but they're far from perfected. What's more, the American military is well aware of that fact, and being overactive as it is, has worked hard on developing countermeasures to them, both physical and electronic. All those taxpayer dollars do go somewhere, after all. Meanwhile, any nuclear exchange, and China will be wiped off the face of the Earth. In other words, any potential military conflict with the US is still a good couple of decades down the line on the Chinese long term plan.
Right now, Trump is being almost the stereotypical American. Blunt, forceful, thin skinned, and stubborn. If China raises one, he will raise two. And that leaves them in a massive dilemma. They can't step back at all. Saving face (a national obsession), the necessity of being seen to be in control and powerful (a tenet of any autocratic government), and mild ingrained racism (China is only real civilisation to them) prevent that. But to try and behave aggressively in any way other than words will likely result in China being slammed back into the stone age. Nuclear warfare would literally eliminate their country, and even conventional would eventually end with the US airforce trashing all their nice new cities.
That leaves them one option; namely shouting louder and squaring up more aggressively publicly in the hope Trump takes the hint. Then at the same time, try to placate him in the backroom with some sort of token concession or two until another crisis comes along to distract him. Naturally, the risk is that Trump, being an unknown factor, will spurn the backroom, and keep raising two for every one in public. We'll see what results, I suppose.
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
If you wanted a dystopian malfunctioning Republican led government based on "morals" you could have just moved to Oklahoma, you didn't need to ruin the country.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
Says the person posting on a forum about toy soldiers, where the one of the most popular companies sell tiny pieces of plastic for $35.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
d-usa wrote: If you wanted a dystopian malfunctioning Republican led government based on "morals" you could have just moved to Oklahoma, you didn't need to ruin the country.
Not only that but really the description doesn't even fit the USA at any point in time, honestly. It is some weird castle built on clouds originating from a fever dream. I was reminded that I forgot to add 'fools' and 'uneducated/under-educated' to the list, so it was helpful in that regard.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
Lol. I knew there was a reason you,were blocked. You are insane.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
If you imagine yourself to be counted among the fittest in that scenario, I think you're in for a rough time
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
If you imagine yourself to be counted among the fittest in that scenario, I think you're in for a rough time
It's typical anarcho-capitalist horse-hockey, but this time with added "liberals are evil".
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.
We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. The statue of liberty is not "closed for business". Want to just say "meh" to the absolutely un-American actions he's taking? Fine, join the Vichy French as history's totalitarian lap dog puppet. History will be watching.
On a somewhat serious note that just got glanced over.
"In one of three executive actions Saturday, President Trump reshuffled the National Security Council to include his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and limited the roles of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Hey Frazz, still think my comparing Bannon to Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda a knee-jerk? Let's see, limit the roles of the actual director of NI as well as the chairman of the JSC on the NSC, while elevating an aide, with immediate ties to a right-wing alt-news website doesn't smack of continued media and information manipulation to you? Wake up people! This is happening now.
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
Obviously I'm an outsider on this, but it often amazes me how ignorant some Americans (not dakka Americans) are about their own history.
Conservatives were the loyalists who supported King George III
Liberals and radicals like Sam Adams, John Adams etc etc were the radicals and the liberals upholding the old English tradition of Liberalism and radicalism, and thus, became rebels.
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.
Who said anything about anarchists?
I was directly calling out the "burn it all down" anarchist mantra of a previous poster in my response and you noted that, in response to my post that "...a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's(me) point being a prime example."
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.
We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. Tnow.
The "true" populist backlash happened in November.
Notice how no one is spamming articles about how well Trump is doing? How he is quickly and genuinely implementing policy he enumerated upon while campaigning? How he is effectively implementing the famous, "I have a pen and a telephone" strategy?
Just wait until he turns the weaponized IRS upon the liberal tax evasion organizations. Something Obama did to great effect during his term.
Because the powerless throw shade and have tantrums. The people getting it done, just get it done.
but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.
Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?
America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.
Who said anything about anarchists?
I was directly calling out the "burn it all down" anarchist mantra of a previous poster in my response and you noted that, in response to my post that "...a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's(me) point being a prime example."
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.
We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. Tnow.
The "true" populist backlash happened in November.
Notice how no one is spamming articles about how well Trump is doing? How he is quickly and genuinely implementing policy he enumerated upon while campaigning? How he is effectively implementing the famous, "I have a pen and a telephone" strategy?
Just wait until he turns the weaponized IRS upon the liberal tax evasion organizations. Something Obama did to great effect during his term.
Because the powerless throw shade and have tantrums. The people getting it done, just get it done.
A populist backlash that got 3 million less votes than its opponent!
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.
We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. Tnow.
The "true" populist backlash happened in November.
Notice how no one is spamming articles about how well Trump is doing? How he is quickly and genuinely implementing policy he enumerated upon while campaigning? How he is effectively implementing the famous, "I have a pen and a telephone" strategy?
Just wait until he turns the weaponized IRS upon the liberal tax evasion organizations. Something Obama did to great effect during his term.
Because the powerless throw shade and have tantrums. The people getting it done, just get it done.
By your definition then, Trump is truly a powerless individual. He throws a twitter tantrum every time somebody says "boo" to him and he has a minister of propaganda throwing shade, aka, manipulating the message and limiting the open flow of information from the government to the people. That, is the weak sauce in this room.
Trump is going to turn out to be the exact thing the liberals/Democrats have needed. A strong message, purpose and call to action. Clinton failed utterly to energize the Democrat side of the equation, but Trump is doing a better job at it than anything I've seen since '08.
****DINLT**** Wrath I can play with, but I just couldn't connect the dots to your response. Thanks for clearing that up!
Trump truly is doing everything that people worried about Obama doing. Turns out they didn't have a problem with a Cult of Personality driven ideologically obsessed power hungry President pushing his own agenda via executive orders, threatening to use the power of the Federal Government to control the movements and thoughts of law abiding folks. They just had a problem if they didn't agree with the ideology of the Emperor.
d-usa wrote: Trump truly is doing everything that people worried about Obama doing. Turns out they didn't have a problem with a Cult of Personality driven ideologically obsessed power hungry President pushing his own agenda via executive orders, threatening to use the power of the Federal Government to control the movements and thoughts of law abiding folks. They just had a problem if they didn't agree with the ideology of the Emperor.
On the bright side, he's taking body blow after body blow and his already lackluster approval keeps dropping; The one thing Huffpost does really well. At the rate he's going we might actually have hope of getting rid of him in 2020.
d-usa wrote: Trump truly is doing everything that people worried about Obama doing. Turns out they didn't have a problem with a Cult of Personality driven ideologically obsessed power hungry President pushing his own agenda via executive orders, threatening to use the power of the Federal Government to control the movements and thoughts of law abiding folks. They just had a problem if they didn't agree with the ideology of the Emperor.
We've just had a high profile court case in Britain which was about defending Parliamentary sovereignty in the face of our Prime Minister issuing an executive order.
Our Supreme Court ruled in Parliament's favour. The issue was about who had the power to activate the withdrawal process from the European union: Parliament or the Prime Minister.
And yet, nobody asked the logical question: why didn't parliament defend its own sovereignty?
I make this point because I see something similar happening in the USA. If the executive is too powerful, why isn't the Congress doing its job and reeling POTUS in?
This is an old issue that has been going on for decades: the over reach of the executive, but is Congress too weak, or is it like you say, the GOP are hypocrites?
They don't mind it when one of their own does it, but hate it when Democrats do it.
I'd like to think that both parties could put partisan differences aside and see the bigger picture i.e a too powerful POTUS is not good for the Republic.
I think for the past 4 years it was partially because the GOP was actually scared to take a real position with consequences on anything. It's easy enough to talk about your positions, but harder when you actually enact them and face potential consequences.
Take Syria for example, they complained about whatever it was Obama did. But they never enacted a strategy of their own, passed an authorization of force or a demand that force stop, or anything along that line. Even after Obama asked them to, they did nothing. It's easy to talk, but if you don't do anything you are not responsible for any consequences due to your action. Same thing with the ACA. They repealed t how many times? They did that knowing that it wouldn't make it through, so there were no consequences. They didn't actually try to pass any fixes, because that would entail consequences because then it's "their bill".
They have spend years now in opposition to governing, rather than govern, even though they were the majority party. Now they don't know how to govern, or they would have had a replacement bill for the ACA ready to go, considering it's been their single most important legislative issue for 6 years now.
They didn't oppose executive overreach because they were okay with it, the reason they didn't oppose it was simply that it's easier to let them have the power and complain about the consequences of their actions than it would have been to keep that power and face consequences for your own actions.
d-usa wrote: I think for the past 4 years it was partially because the GOP was actually scared to take a real position with consequences on anything. It's easy enough to talk about your positions, but harder when you actually enact them and face potential consequences.
Take Syria for example, they complained about whatever it was Obama did. But they never enacted a strategy of their own, passed an authorization of force or a demand that force stop, or anything along that line. Even after Obama asked them to, they did nothing. It's easy to talk, but if you don't do anything you are not responsible for any consequences due to your action. Same thing with the ACA. They repealed t how many times? They did that knowing that it wouldn't make it through, so there were no consequences. They didn't actually try to pass any fixes, because that would entail consequences because then it's "their bill".
They have spend years now in opposition to governing, rather than govern, even though they were the majority party. Now they don't know how to govern, or they would have had a replacement bill for the ACA ready to go, considering it's been their single most important legislative issue for 6 years now.
They didn't oppose executive overreach because they were okay with it, the reason they didn't oppose it was simply that it's easier to let them have the power and complain about the consequences of their actions than it would have been to keep that power and face consequences for your own actions.
A good point about Syria and ACA, and here's an expansion on that point:
I sat through the Senate and Congressional oversight committees on the Iran Nuclear deal.
I had to wait for a plumber to turn up and had nothing else to do that day.
Point is, John Kerry really turned the tables on the GOP that day.
Kerry sat through a least a dozen GOP Senators/Congress men grandstanding about how bad a deal it was, and then Kerry shot them down in flames, simply by asking, what would you have done?
The GOP had no answer!
When Kerry pointed out that the deal was almost identical to what GW Bush proposed, the GOP were silent. The silence spoke volumes.
I think you're right. They snipe from the sidelines, but they have nothing to offer as an alternative.
whembly wrote: Conversely the next four years will be about liberals completely forgetting everything Obama did during the last 8.
'Tis why I'm in Calvin Ball mode... doesn't matter anymore.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Trump's actions these last 48hrs are terrible and we should call him out on that.
What gets my goat is that the same people moaning about it in newspapers said nothing when Obama did something similar in 2011. That was also wrong.
I'm not trying to deflect by bringing up Obama, but the double standards on display as always, have me reaching for the sick bucket. It's bad journalism.
If the press would hold everybody to account equally, we'd all be better off for it in the long run.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Amnesty international reckons Obama's drone attacks killed hundreds of innocent women and children abroad in his 8 years as POTUS.
One of those attacks included the death of an American civilian, which some called assassination.
I believe it's illegal for POTUS to kill American citizens in this manner. Due process, trial by jury, 8th amendment and all that.
As I say, none of that excuses Trump's idiocy these past 2 days, but I'm just asking for balanced journalism, and not a whitewash of Obama, especially from a certain British newspaper.
Men I hope people in Taiwan won't suffer from that war between the US and the mainland.
Peregrine wrote: More likely, if Trump doesn't back down, is China getting economic revenge. They certainly have enough economic influence over the US to make us (literally) pay for the insult, and can do it in a very public manner that makes it clear that Trump earned it.
That would be way better. If the US and China cut economics ties, it will be great for Europe. Also I hope Alphabet (i.e. Google), Twitter, Facebook, Apple and co notice that in Europe they can get their very-high-skilled employee from all over the world to work together, including those from the US.
Then we'll be able to say unironically #ThanksTrump!
After that we'll just need to finally get that EU into a big super-state like the US did (that part might be really, really hard ^^), and we'll be back into the game big time!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
I think “Neo-Marxists” is quite the worst possible description for people that have never, ever expressed the wish to abolish private property, institute a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and that are quite as far as possible from the concept of class warfare as can be. Calling them “Neo-Guelphs” (or “Neo-Ghibellines”) would not be more out-of-touch in my humble opinion.
If I'm wrong about the fact the people (for whom you consider the name “neo-marxists” is fitting) are as far as possible from the concept of class warfare as can be, then my bad, I'll blame not actually living in the US. But actual communist ideas in the US seems like complete science fiction in France.
I could get beyond that. Mad Max style. In the US. Definitely not in Switzerland, you keep your hands out of my little precious postcard country . Send lord Humungus my best regards.
Zywus wrote: If you imagine yourself to be counted among the fittest in that scenario, I think you're in for a rough time
Exalted for greater truth! That's fact, AND alt-fact, AND every other kind of fact.
LordofHats wrote: At the rate he's going we might actually have hope of getting rid of him in 2020.
Might be too late. Also those ratings don't seem that bad. More than 40% of US citizen thinks this guy is doing a great job? Oh my!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Obama froze the program from one country, Iraq, after an event where fingerprints on a bomb used in Iraq matched the fingerprints of someone who entered the US as a refugee after previously having been detained in Iraq. They made changes in screenings based on that evidence, and then resumed it.
They froze the program for a specific country due to a specific reason. People were upset about it then, and innocent people died because of it then.
whembly wrote: Conversely the next four years will be about liberals completely forgetting everything Obama did during the last 8.
'Tis why I'm in Calvin Ball mode... doesn't matter anymore.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Trump's actions these last 48hrs are terrible and we should call him out on that.
What gets my goat is that the same people moaning about it in newspapers said nothing when Obama did something similar in 2011. That was also wrong.
I'm not trying to deflect by bringing up Obama, but the double standards on display as always, have me reaching for the sick bucket. It's bad journalism.
If the press would hold everybody to account equally, we'd all be better off for it in the long run.
I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit...
The Obama adminisration was right to block the Iraqi refugee program in 2011. There were nat sec issues going on at that time that pracipitated that decision. (I think it was the fact that a fingerprint was found on a IED that matched someone trying to get into the US... or something like that).
Trumpesto, using the same authority as Obama's '11 decision, has every right to do so as well. (gak, he campaigned for this gak). Had they:
a) set an effective date
b) really informed the DHS c) waived it for those in transit
d) not include the green card holders
I would've spent more energy defending this move. Alas, it's implementation and the inclusion of the green card holders to me is very troubling.
However, the Trumpesto Critic's losing their mind and going flying rodent gak is becoming a story... it's like they're walking into Trumpesto and Bannon's trap here...
There was plenty of "liberal media" blowback on drones in general as well as the potential or confirmed killings of US citizens, 2 minutes on google yielded this
This will not be a positive highlight of Obama's presidency. That said, part of the reason they're may not be getting quite as much attention is that it's an extension of a program and policy that originated under the Bush administration. Obama did get lots of flak for it however, and rightfully so.
However, Obama didn't issue a string of Executive Orders in his first few days in office that read like something directly out of Goebbels playbook either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Doesn't matter, whembly thinks they are the same because "Obummer iz bayuhd" and other false equivalences
You know what, if you are going to keep dragging me in like this, at least have the integrity to specifically point out something in my posts to justify your point.
You know, this brings a thought. I am so, so SO grateful that our President Charles de Gaulle was nationalistic enough to say “No we don't want to rely on the US for our defense, feth you we'll get our own nukes”. I feel so much more comfortable at night knowing that there are French nuclear submarines armed with nukes around the oceans. Depending on Trump… oh my god that would be bad.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
For once I agree with Mitochondria.
I eagerly anticipate a near future in which society collapses, my wife is raped to death by a gang of lusty young alt-right hoodlums for being not white, I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, while my teenage daughter is taken for good "breeding stock" because she has wide hips.
It will be a glorious new age when after a thousand years of redevelopment along "dog eat dog" lines, society eventually manages to attain the level of 9th century Wessex, with all the glories of art, literature, and science that I am sure you will be put in mind of.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
For once I agree with Mitochondria.
I eagerly anticipate a near future in which society collapses, my wife is raped to death by a gang of lusty young hoodlums for being not white, I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, while my teenage daughter is taken for good "breeding stock" because she has wide hips.
It will be a glorious new age when after a thousand years of redevelopment along "dog eat dog" lines, society eventually manages to attain the level of 9th century Wessex, with all the glories of art, literature, and science that I am sure you will be put in mind of.
Hopefully some watery tart will throw a sword at somebody soon so we can know where supreme executive power will come from.
Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.
Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.
We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.
However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.
Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.
For once I agree with Mitochondria.
I eagerly anticipate a near future in which society collapses, my wife is raped to death by a gang of lusty young alt-right hoodlums for being not white, I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, while my teenage daughter is taken for good "breeding stock" because she has wide hips.
It will be a glorious new age when after a thousand years of redevelopment along "dog eat dog" lines, society eventually manages to attain the level of 9th century Wessex, with all the glories of art, literature, and science that I am sure you will be put in mind of.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Doesn't matter, whembly thinks they are the same because "Obummer iz bayuhd" and other false equivalences
You know what, if you are going to keep dragging me in like this, at least have the integrity to specifically point out something in my posts to justify your point.
You mean besides the hundreds of posts where you literally complain about everything he does, doesn't or might do?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Doesn't matter, whembly thinks they are the same because "Obummer iz bayuhd" and other false equivalences
You know what, if you are going to keep dragging me in like this, at least have the integrity to specifically point out something in my posts to justify your point.
You mean besides the hundreds of posts where you literally complain about everything he does, doesn't or might do?
If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
Isn't it time to have a discussion whether or not we'd WANT these powahs at the Executive level?
It's it time to advocate to relegate some of them back to Congress and the states?
That's definitely a good conversation to have. The Executive branch has acquired a vast amount of power that it wasn't originally intended to have across a broad spectrum of issues, and the statement that "Americans have Kings, they're elected every 4 years" has some merit. Executive orders, military actions, huge arrays of agencies under the Executive branch employing hundreds of thousands of people, etc. Listening to Dan Carlin's latest history podcast, he actually brought up a really good point about how the existence of nuclear weapons dramatically expanded the power of the executive branch in general, as there could be no waiting on Congress to declare war, shifting that responsibility to the Executive branch in practice while Congress pretty much just managed funding.
That said, given how dysfunctional congress is, much of that also may simply be bowing to reality in the expectation that anything actually get done.
Not sure if there are any good easy answers, but it's definitely an issue that should have been more closely looked at over the last 60 years in general, and has been brought up by many thinkers on all sides, but seldom addressed at the actual governmental level.
If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
Isn't it time to have a discussion whether or not we'd WANT these powahs at the Executive level?
It's it time to advocate to relegate some of them back to Congress and the states?
That's definitely a good conversation to have. The Executive branch has acquired a vast amount of power that it wasn't originally intended to have across a broad spectrum of issues, and the statement that "Americans have Kings, they're elected every 4 years" has some merit. Executive orders, military actions, huge arrays of agencies under the Executive branch employing hundreds of thousands of people, etc. Listening to Dan Carlin's latest history podcast, he actually brought up a really good point about how the existence of nuclear weapons dramatically expanded the power of the executive branch in general, as there could be no waiting on Congress to declare war, shifting that responsibility to the Executive branch in practice while Congress pretty much just managed funding.
That said, given how dysfunctional congress is, much of that also may simply be bowing to reality in the expectation that anything actually get done.
Not sure if there are any good easy answers, but it's definitely an issue that should have been more closely looked at over the last 60 years in general, and has been brought up by many thinkers on all sides, but seldom addressed at the actual governmental level.
Yea...
One good thing that Congress will likely pass (Trump'll sign... although, it weakens him), is that there's a bill in the works to undo the Chevron Deference... I think that'll do loads to mitigate runway executive overreach. It's a start...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Doesn't matter, whembly thinks they are the same because "Obummer iz bayuhd" and other false equivalences
You know what, if you are going to keep dragging me in like this, at least have the integrity to specifically point out something in my posts to justify your point.
You mean besides the hundreds of posts where you literally complain about everything he does, doesn't or might do?
Yes. Pick any one of my previous posts...
I'm not going to drag myself through hundreds of pages, because everyone here already knows it is true because they have seen it
If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
Isn't it time to have a discussion whether or not we'd WANT these powahs at the Executive level?
It's it time to advocate to relegate some of them back to Congress and the states?
That's definitely a good conversation to have. The Executive branch has acquired a vast amount of power that it wasn't originally intended to have across a broad spectrum of issues, and the statement that "Americans have Kings, they're elected every 4 years" has some merit. Executive orders, military actions, huge arrays of agencies under the Executive branch employing hundreds of thousands of people, etc. Listening to Dan Carlin's latest history podcast, he actually brought up a really good point about how the existence of nuclear weapons dramatically expanded the power of the executive branch in general, as there could be no waiting on Congress to declare war, shifting that responsibility to the Executive branch in practice while Congress pretty much just managed funding.
That said, given how dysfunctional congress is, much of that also may simply be bowing to reality in the expectation that anything actually get done.
Not sure if there are any good easy answers, but it's definitely an issue that should have been more closely looked at over the last 60 years in general, and has been brought up by many thinkers on all sides, but seldom addressed at the actual governmental level.
Yea...
One good thing that Congress will likely pass (Trump'll sign... although, it weakens him), is that there's a bill in the works to undo the Chevron Deference... I think that'll do loads to mitigate runway executive overreach. It's a start...
That has the potential to get all sorts of weird, but may be interesting, I'm not sure exactly what sort of policy would replace it however.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I think it was right for Obama to drone strike the ex-American terrorist in the Yemen.
I don't think anyone mourns the guy, but they also apparently went after his kid who wasn't apparently involved in anything, and there are...very scary issues surrounding a targeted assassination, by the United States Military, of a US citizen, particularly without any apparent due process, conviction, etc.
Ustrello wrote: I'm not going to drag myself through hundreds of pages, because everyone here already knows it is true because they have seen it
Actually, you can filter this thread to only showWhembly's posts, which are just 13 pages. Don't be lazy. If you have a problem with the things Whembly says, be specific.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?
Doesn't matter, whembly thinks they are the same because "Obummer iz bayuhd" and other false equivalences
Doesn't erase the fact that, whether rightly or not, Trump is catching public flak for some of the same crap Obama carried out on his watch with nary (or hardly) a peep by the controlled media organs.
In 2011, Obama instituted a six month ban on refugees from Iraq for the reasons dusa pointed out. In media land: *sound of crickets chirping*
In 2017, Trump institutes a 120 suspension of taking in refugees from Syria. Media land explodes in outrage.
The Obama Administration declares seven countries to be covered under an enhanced visa security policy. In media land: *sound of crickets chirping*
Trump continues Obama's policies on the matter, including the policies of the Obama DHS, for the same seven countries along with a ninety day visa suspension. Media land explodes in outrage.
Even if Hillary Clinton got elected, she would be catching some of the same flak from the controlled opposition among so-called "conservative" media outlets for her actions. That's just the nature of the beast.
People seem to forget that the controlled Old Media outlets thrive and run on partisan bickering and controversy, all in the interests of money, agendas, and ratings. Even Faux Nooze. That's why I take the so-called "mainstream media" with the same level of seriousness as I do supermarket tabloids like the National Enquirer. Which is to say, none at all. It's ALL propagandist bull and ratings hype no matter where it comes from.
I eagerly anticipate a near future in which society collapses, my wife is raped to death by a gang of lusty young alt-right hoodlums for being not white, I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, while my teenage daughter is taken for good "breeding stock" because she has wide hips.
It will be a glorious new age when after a thousand years of redevelopment along "dog eat dog" lines, society eventually manages to attain the level of 9th century Wessex, with all the glories of art, literature, and science that I am sure you will be put in mind of.
Don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here in the US, race-based sexual assault is significantly more likely to happen in the opposite direction, SIGNIFICANTLY in the other direction. Literally 4,000 times more likely in the opposite direction.
I eagerly anticipate a near future in which society collapses, my wife is raped to death by a gang of lusty young alt-right hoodlums for being not white, I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, while my teenage daughter is taken for good "breeding stock" because she has wide hips.
It will be a glorious new age when after a thousand years of redevelopment along "dog eat dog" lines, society eventually manages to attain the level of 9th century Wessex, with all the glories of art, literature, and science that I am sure you will be put in mind of.
Don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here in the US, race-based sexual assault is significantly more likely to happen in the opposite direction, SIGNIFICANTLY in the other direction. Literally 4,000 times more likely in the opposite direction.
I eagerly anticipate a near future in which society collapses, my wife is raped to death by a gang of lusty young alt-right hoodlums for being not white, I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, while my teenage daughter is taken for good "breeding stock" because she has wide hips.
It will be a glorious new age when after a thousand years of redevelopment along "dog eat dog" lines, society eventually manages to attain the level of 9th century Wessex, with all the glories of art, literature, and science that I am sure you will be put in mind of.
Don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here in the US, race-based sexual assault is significantly more likely to happen in the opposite direction, SIGNIFICANTLY in the other direction. Literally 4,000 times more likely in the opposite direction.
Frazzled wrote: Well he did invent the doctrine thats its perfectly fine to kill US citizens as long as they aren't in the US...at least that we know about.
US citizens who are actively involved in assisting a foreign power engaged in a war with the US. Having US citizenship shouldn't magically make a person no longer a valid military target.
Frazzled wrote: Well he did invent the doctrine thats its perfectly fine to kill US citizens as long as they aren't in the US...at least that we know about.
US citizens who are actively involved in assisting a foreign power engaged in a war with the US. Having US citizenship shouldn't magically make a person no longer a valid military target.
He posted AQ propaganda on the internet. You don't magically lose your US citizenship because the Feds don't approve of your YouTube channel.
Prestor Jon wrote: He posted AQ propaganda on the internet. You don't magically lose your US citizenship because the Feds don't approve of your YouTube channel.
It went way beyond that. He was actively involved with AQ leadership, not some random guy pressing "like" on propaganda videos. If you pretend for a moment that he was a citizen of AQ he's clearly a legitimate military target, so why should having different citizenship grant him immunity? It's the same reason nobody is going around the battlefield checking citizenship papers before shooting back at enemy soldiers. If you join a hostile foreign military you become a target.
Not very. The republicans have majorities in both houses of congress and no reason to impeach their own guy. After all, he's just doing all the things they've been dreaming about, with the added advantage of focusing everyone else on " Trump" rather than " the republican party".
Frazzled wrote: Well he did invent the doctrine thats its perfectly fine to kill US citizens as long as they aren't in the US...at least that we know about.
US citizens who are actively involved in assisting a foreign power engaged in a war with the US. Having US citizenship shouldn't magically make a person no longer a valid military target.
There is no structure in US law to make this distinction, and Al-Qaeda is not a foreign power in the way say, being a covert agent for the Russian FSB might be, by definition it is a non-state actor, that operates on a global level.
Now, if a US citizen is killed in battle with US forces while operating under the Al-Qaeda banner, well, that's simply an issue of reality rearing its ugly head, in the same way that a police shooting would be handled. A targeted, directed killing of a US citizen without due process is another matter however. Even if that person is acting against the US, that's not a hot-blooded killing in the confusion and heat of battle, that was a deliberate decision by the state to kill a citizen without due process, and there is no legal authority for that.
One can argue the merits of the action, legalities aside, I don't think anyone is missing the guy, however his teenage son that wasn't apparently involved in anything was another matter, and it raises troubling legal questions and opens the door to some awkward possibilities.
whembly wrote: If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
That's what makes all the wailing and gnashing of teeth so entertaining. The confirmation that one side is no different to the other.
But that's not why I'm posting, my question is what checks and balances are there for Executive Orders, outside of the Constitution (I presume)?
whembly wrote: If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
That's what makes all the wailing and gnashing of teeth so entertaining. The confirmation that one side is no different to the other.
But that's not why I'm posting, my question is what checks and balances are there for Executive Orders, outside of the Constitution (I presume)?
A) Congress can pass laws to change that (assuming they overcome a president's veto).
B) If the EO's on dubious legal grounds... you can take 'em to court (provided that you have 'standing').
C) Otherwise, you're gak out of luck... as someone once said... elections have consequences.
whembly wrote: If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
That's what makes all the wailing and gnashing of teeth so entertaining. The confirmation that one side is no different to the other.
But that's not why I'm posting, my question is what checks and balances are there for Executive Orders, outside of the Constitution (I presume)?
The checks and balances are plenty for them, congress just doesn't want to do the work.
EO's can't make any laws, despite what people bitching say about them (on both sides). Take the wall for example: it's just a fancy document saying "Law X written in whenever gives me the authority to build a wall, so I'm using my authority to direct Y to look at Z to build it sometime".
The power behind the EOs comes form the legislature passing laws, the EOs just say how these laws will be enforced (or not enforced). It's like you work at a restaurant and the boss says "we now serve BLTs", you can say "I'm sliding the tomatoes in 0.5 inch slices and I'm putting mayo on the bottom bread only, and using baby lettuce and turkey bacon". You didn't have the authority to add a BLT to the menu, you just had the authority to decide how to make the BLT. And that's EO's in a nutshell.
So checks and balances are simple:
- is it against the law? Judiciary can shut it down.
- is it lawful but legislature doesn't like it? Change the law that lets the president do that.
The power behind the EOs comes form the legislature passing laws, the EOs just say how these laws will be enforced (or not enforced). It's like you work at a restaurant and the boss says "we now serve BLTs", you can say "I'm sliding the tomatoes in 0.5 inch slices and I'm putting mayo on the bottom bread only, and using baby lettuce and turkey bacon". You didn't have the authority to add a BLT to the menu, you just had the authority to decide how to make the BLT. And that's EO's in a nutshell.
This is a really good analogy XD
I would add the caveat though that Executive Orders can go a little farther than this though. Especially in dealing with emergencies Precedent and a host of Federal Law has given the Executive a rather long list of situations where he can exercise power above and beyond the original Constitutional constraints. Take for example the idea of the tariff on Mexican imports. Trump cannot legally level a new tariff. That's a power of Congress. However there are several Federal laws that allow the President under certain circumstances to put down a tariff on a foreign country (such as national emergency and war). Trump could use these to execute the tariff if he were so inclined, though it would probably piss off everyone else in government and given that the US isn't at war with Mexico or engaged in any major crisis in which a tariff against Mexico serves any benefit it would probably fail in the inevitable court challenge (though courts can be slow on such issues and thus aren't necessarily a good check on this power).
Random musing, just because I saw the conversation on the good old Facebook.
There was an article about Starbucks hiring 10,000 refugees over the next 5 years. In the comments people are bitching about "why aren't you hiring veterans instead" and "veterans over refugees". I thought about pointing out that statistically, veterans have killed more people in the US than refugees, but I figured that it isn't a rabbit hole worth jumping into
d-usa wrote: Random musing, just because I saw the conversation on the good old Facebook.
There was an article about Starbucks hiring 10,000 refugees over the next 5 years. In the comments people are bitching about "why aren't you hiring veterans instead" and "veterans over refugees". I thought about pointing out that statistically, veterans have killed more people in the US than refugees, but I figured that it isn't a rabbit hole worth jumping into
I wonder how the people kicking up a fuss would feel about refugee interpreters being hired?
Or, you know. Let into the country like we told them we would.
d-usa wrote: Random musing, just because I saw the conversation on the good old Facebook.
There was an article about Starbucks hiring 10,000 refugees over the next 5 years. In the comments people are bitching about "why aren't you hiring veterans instead" and "veterans over refugees". I thought about pointing out that statistically, veterans have killed more people in the US than refugees, but I figured that it isn't a rabbit hole worth jumping into
In the time I have spent with people from that side it is kinda weird but it has to do with how many people think veterans are owed a job. How refugees are just the same as other Muslims.
And I dont know about other veterans, but the ones I have meet are not clamoring to work at Starbucks.
Between not only knowing how to show up to work on time, and how to stand in one place for hours on end without complaining, I think most veterans are horrifically overqualified to work at Starbucks
whembly wrote: If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
That's what makes all the wailing and gnashing of teeth so entertaining. The confirmation that one side is no different to the other.
But that's not why I'm posting, my question is what checks and balances are there for Executive Orders, outside of the Constitution (I presume)?
The checks and balances are plenty for them, congress just doesn't want to do the work.
EO's can't make any laws, despite what people bitching say about them (on both sides). Take the wall for example: it's just a fancy document saying "Law X written in whenever gives me the authority to build a wall, so I'm using my authority to direct Y to look at Z to build it sometime".
The power behind the EOs comes form the legislature passing laws, the EOs just say how these laws will be enforced (or not enforced). It's like you work at a restaurant and the boss says "we now serve BLTs", you can say "I'm sliding the tomatoes in 0.5 inch slices and I'm putting mayo on the bottom bread only, and using baby lettuce and turkey bacon". You didn't have the authority to add a BLT to the menu, you just had the authority to decide how to make the BLT. And that's EO's in a nutshell.
So checks and balances are simple:
- is it against the law? Judiciary can shut it down.
- is it lawful but legislature doesn't like it? Change the law that lets the president do that.
Sorry if this is a little of topic but is that Hillary and bill Clinton in your profile pic? It's pretty funny.
On topic since they are removing health care act would everyone be ok with say a 3% sales tax on all items if all the money went into a health care system? Like a socialized Medicare?
On topic since they are removing health care act would everyone be ok with say a 3% sales tax on all items if all the money went into a health care system? Like a socialized Medicare?
Right now by health benefits cost me 8% of my pay check, not counting the portion my employer/government pays for it which is twice of what I pay.
So there could be an 8% tax to pay for healthcare, and I wouldn't see a difference in my pay and I would probably have less co-pays and co-insurance.
whembly wrote: If righties didn't like how Obama wielded his Executive Powahs... and conversely when lefties don't like it when Trumpesto uses that same Powahs...
That's what makes all the wailing and gnashing of teeth so entertaining. The confirmation that one side is no different to the other.
But that's not why I'm posting, my question is what checks and balances are there for Executive Orders, outside of the Constitution (I presume)?
The checks and balances are plenty for them, congress just doesn't want to do the work.
EO's can't make any laws, despite what people bitching say about them (on both sides). Take the wall for example: it's just a fancy document saying "Law X written in whenever gives me the authority to build a wall, so I'm using my authority to direct Y to look at Z to build it sometime".
The power behind the EOs comes form the legislature passing laws, the EOs just say how these laws will be enforced (or not enforced). It's like you work at a restaurant and the boss says "we now serve BLTs", you can say "I'm sliding the tomatoes in 0.5 inch slices and I'm putting mayo on the bottom bread only, and using baby lettuce and turkey bacon". You didn't have the authority to add a BLT to the menu, you just had the authority to decide how to make the BLT. And that's EO's in a nutshell.
So checks and balances are simple:
- is it against the law? Judiciary can shut it down.
- is it lawful but legislature doesn't like it? Change the law that lets the president do that.
Sorry if this is a little of topic but is that Hillary and bill Clinton in your profile pic? It's pretty funny.
On topic since they are removing health care act would everyone be ok with say a 3% sales tax on all items if all the money went into a health care system? Like a socialized Medicare?
I'd be in favor of an income tax increase (even though I'm in a bracket that likely may bear a substantial burden of that, particularly as a single adult with no dependents) over a sales tax (which are typically regressive and more disruptive). I really dislike sales taxes on general principle, but especially ones that aren't in easy increments also
Vaktathi wrote: There is no structure in US law to make this distinction, and Al-Qaeda is not a foreign power in the way say, being a covert agent for the Russian FSB might be, by definition it is a non-state actor, that operates on a global level.
And this is the problem, really. The laws of war are intended to cover conflicts between recognized states, and they're an awkward fit for a conflict involving recognized states against unrecognized states and/or non-state military organizations. But the legal technicalities of the situation aren't very compelling moral arguments.
Even if that person is acting against the US, that's not a hot-blooded killing in the confusion and heat of battle, that was a deliberate decision by the state to kill a citizen without due process, and there is no legal authority for that.
Again, consider the alternative situation where the target is a citizen of the newly-recognized state of Al-Qaeda. Same exact job, same exact method of killing them. It's pretty clearly a legitimate attack against a legitimate military target, with clear legal authority to do it. And the "heat of battle" issue doesn't apply, enemy leaders and communication infrastructure are clearly valid military targets even if they aren't directly present on the battlefield. So why should a legitimate military target suddenly cease to be legitimate just because they pull out some papers and yell "but I'm a US citizen"?
One can argue the merits of the action, legalities aside, I don't think anyone is missing the guy, however his teenage son that wasn't apparently involved in anything was another matter, and it raises troubling legal questions and opens the door to some awkward possibilities.
I agree on this point. If the son was not in fact involved then killing him is not legitimate. Being the family of someone who is a legitimate target is not grounds for killing someone.
I don't have time to read everything since I posted last and I apologise for that, but I don't know if anyone has mentioned anything about the screws up during Theresa May's visit to the US.
First up, they spelled her name wrong. Seriously, this is a thing that happened. That's bad enough when its for a half day seminar by a budget training company. Between world leaders its fething amazing.
Then members of the UK press were blocked from Whitehouse entry after their applications failed to check out. They didn't check out because Whitehouse admin staff got confused when the Brits put their dates as DDMMYY. Seriously that was enough of a stumper that all those Trump appointees just could not figure out what had possibly happened. One journalist chasing the story speaks of talking to a Whitehouse admin official who had literally never heard of dates being done a different way.
Those are just small, but funny matters of administrative competence. They are not in and of themselves disasters, but they indicate incompetence in an administration that goes some way to explaining the bungled 20% tariff that then wasn't but just maybe might be please stop asking questions, or the sudden changes to immigration that somehow ended up being more stupid than racist.
But the real doozy came from the shared press conference the two held. Trump spent his time bragging about how he predicted Brexit and how it would be great for Britain. Meanwhile May just had to stand there, looking very awkward because while she is tasked with carrying out Brexit, she campaigned strongly against it. Whether Trump was ignorant of the place he was putting May in or indifferent to it is a question open to debate. That it is the kind of blunder that will make the British pivot to the US over Europe just that much harder than it ought to be is the reality.
And there's no denying that kind of craptastic diplomacy builds up. After Trump's bizarre immigration ban got announced, May quickly distanced herself, a move that would have been harder and less likely if Trump had managed their meeting competently.
Peregrine wrote: Not very. The republicans have majorities in both houses of congress and no reason to impeach their own guy. After all, he's just doing all the things they've been dreaming about, with the added advantage of focusing everyone else on " Trump" rather than " the republican party".
It depends, if Trump's approval tanks, which is bordering on the inevitable, and the Democrats manage to build a strong and clear case for impeachment over something, then I suspect Republicans will not want to be painted as the party in congress protecting Trump from impeachment. The question really is whether Trump will do something with a decent case for impeachment, that will be discovered and substantiated before November 2018. A few weeks ago I would have considered that timeline way too tight, but judging by Trump's decision to basically just ignore ethics guidelines on his business interests, and the incompetence shown in his executive orders given so far, I'm actually giving this a real chance of happening. Maybe 10 to 15%.
@DHSgov
Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States → http://go.usa.gov/x9AhN
Permanent Residence from those 7 countries are no longer impacted by the EO.
People talk about the rate of EOs that Trump has signed. What's amazing is the rate of announced and half announced policies that are being walked back or withdrawn completely after people point out simple, obvious and immediate issues that should have been raised before the policy announcement.
I really have to wonder if Trump is operating with a team that is simply not taking any expert advice. Whatever is going on it needs to change quickly, because this is becoming a farce.
I had an insight recently that I kinda want to share with some smart people like you guys, to see what you think.
The reason that capital punishment isn't a deterrent is because we're looking at laws the wrong way.
Laws are simply rules that exist only in the minds of humans. When we write them down, it's just a reminder of what the rules are. The penalty for breaking a law doesn't actually stop anyone from breaking the law, nor does it deter them from doing so. It's simply a price to pay for breaking a law, that must be paid after doing so.
Because of this, if you are willing to pay the price (endure the penalty) for breaking a law, then there's no reason not to break that law.
If you are willing to die in order to do something, the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is simply a price you must be willing to accept for your actions.
It's further complicated by the fact that not all commissions of a crime result in the penalty being applied, which means that you only sometimes have to pay the price for it, which makes it even less effective at stopping people from breaking the law.
If you want to stop something from happening, you can't simply set a price for doing it and expect that to solve the problem. You have to change the situation so that people don't want to do it in the first place.
sebster wrote: It depends, if Trump's approval tanks, which is bordering on the inevitable, and the Democrats manage to build a strong and clear case for impeachment over something, then I suspect Republicans will not want to be painted as the party in congress protecting Trump from impeachment. The question really is whether Trump will do something with a decent case for impeachment, that will be discovered and substantiated before November 2018. A few weeks ago I would have considered that timeline way too tight, but judging by Trump's decision to basically just ignore ethics guidelines on his business interests, and the incompetence shown in his executive orders given so far, I'm actually giving this a real chance of happening. Maybe 10 to 15%.
IMO it would have to be something absolutely clear and undeniable, and likely something criminal rather than merely unethical. Trump is just way too useful as a meatshield for the rest of the party. As long as he's merely a bad president and not a criminal president they can do all the horrible stuff on their agenda and let Trump continue to draw all the hate. It might hurt them in 2018, but it will probably do less damage in the long run if 2016-2020 is known as "the Trump years" and not "the republican years". The party as a whole can campaign in the post-Trump era on "well, he was never really a republican anyway" and reject responsibility for anything that happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: If you are willing to die in order to do something, the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is simply a price you must be willing to accept for your actions.
This is true, but in most cases people aren't willing to die. A mass shooter killing for ideological reasons might be quite happy to seek martyrdom, but the guy committing armed robbery to pay for a drug habit is much less interested in dying.
You have to change the situation so that people don't want to do it in the first place.
This is also true, but limited in its effectiveness. You can change some motivations for crime (legalizing drugs to end the associated crime, fighting poverty so people aren't desperate enough to turn to crime, etc) but you'll never catch everyone. And so the price of committing a crime has to be high enough that it isn't desirable to do so.
sebster wrote: It depends, if Trump's approval tanks, which is bordering on the inevitable, and the Democrats manage to build a strong and clear case for impeachment over something, then I suspect Republicans will not want to be painted as the party in congress protecting Trump from impeachment. The question really is whether Trump will do something with a decent case for impeachment, that will be discovered and substantiated before November 2018. A few weeks ago I would have considered that timeline way too tight, but judging by Trump's decision to basically just ignore ethics guidelines on his business interests, and the incompetence shown in his executive orders given so far, I'm actually giving this a real chance of happening. Maybe 10 to 15%.
IMO it would have to be something absolutely clear and undeniable, and likely something criminal rather than merely unethical. Trump is just way too useful as a meatshield for the rest of the party. As long as he's merely a bad president and not a criminal president they can do all the horrible stuff on their agenda and let Trump continue to draw all the hate. It might hurt them in 2018, but it will probably do less damage in the long run if 2016-2020 is known as "the Trump years" and not "the republican years". The party as a whole can campaign in the post-Trump era on "well, he was never really a republican anyway" and reject responsibility for anything that happened.
Oh.
I assumed the Republican politicians were just going to go along with whatever Trump says because of party solidarity.
Pouncey wrote: I assumed the Republican politicians were just going to go along with whatever Trump says because of party solidarity.
Not really. I'm sure they're not happy with Trump's incompetent handling of things and how it's continuous bad PR, but they generally agree with the things he wants to do.
Pouncey wrote: If you are willing to die in order to do something, the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is simply a price you must be willing to accept for your actions.
This is true, but in most cases people aren't willing to die. A mass shooter killing for ideological reasons might be quite happy to seek martyrdom, but the guy committing armed robbery to pay for a drug habit is much less interested in dying.
That's simply a result of the price being too high to be worth the benefits.
Most people have something they're willing to die for, but they're not willing to die for everything.
You have to change the situation so that people don't want to do it in the first place.
This is also true, but limited in its effectiveness. You can change some motivations for crime (legalizing drugs to end the associated crime, fighting poverty so people aren't desperate enough to turn to crime, etc) but you'll never catch everyone. And so the price of committing a crime has to be high enough that it isn't desirable to do so.
Catching people is irrelevant here.
The point is to remove the motivation to do it in the first place.
And I simply took it as a given that 100% eliminating something is impossible, so I didn't mention it.
Pouncey wrote: I assumed the Republican politicians were just going to go along with whatever Trump says because of party solidarity.
Not really. I'm sure they're not happy with Trump's incompetent handling of things and how it's continuous bad PR, but they generally agree with the things he wants to do.
No, they don't.
They spent most of their campaigns trying to stop Trump from becoming their candidate.
Then when they failed to do so, they turned that attitude around and just went along with everything he wanted, because it would be political suicide for a Republican politician to publicly oppose a Republican President.
Pouncey wrote: That's simply a result of the price being too high to be worth the benefits.
Most people have something they're willing to die for, but they're not willing to die for everything.
I don't understand what your point is. Most people have at least one thing they're willing to die for, but what does that have to do with the death penalty and crime? Most of those things people are willing to die for aren't crimes, and most people aren't willing to die to commit the typical crimes that get the death penalty. It doesn't matter if, in theory, you'd be willing to die to save your family in a "not enough lifeboats for everyone" situation when the question is whether you'd be willing to die to kill the boss you're frustrated with.
Catching people is irrelevant here.
The point is to remove the motivation to do it in the first place.
By "catching" I mean "removing the motivation from everyone". You can address some of the common motivations, but no "remove the motivation" plan is going to cover everything.
And I simply took it as a given that 100% eliminating something is impossible, so I didn't mention it.
And that impossibility is why you need punishment as a deterrent, because no matter how much you work to remove the motivation to commit crimes people are still going to want to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: They spent most of their campaigns trying to stop Trump from becoming their candidate.
Yes, because they wanted to be president. It's just like Sanders spent his campaign trying to stop Clinton from becoming the candidate, despite the fact that they agreed on virtually every issue.
Then when they failed to do so, they turned that attitude around and just went along with everything he wanted, because it would be political suicide for a Republican politician to publicly oppose a Republican President.
Uh, no, that isn't true at all. "Repeal Obamacare" is standard republican policy. "Deport them all" is standard republican policy. "Ban the Muslims" is standard republican policy. "Tax cuts for the rich" is standard republican policy. "Privatize everything" is standard republican policy. The main reason anyone in the party didn't like Trump is that he's a clumsy amateur who might interfere with the party machine and generate too much bad PR, in terms of policy positions the only real point of disagreement was the occasional stupid thing Trump said about foreign policy. And TBH, with republican foreign policy being little more than "whatever Obama wants must be opposed" who knows what their real goals are anyway.
reds8n wrote: ... Presumably if we/Europe/similar do get involved Russia would just cut off the energy supplies from the east.
Plus, unbelievable is it it to type almost, I'm not sure there's enough support for Trump/USA in Europe at the moment.
Against China.
Would Europe get involved? We've just been called obsolete and the US has threatened to leave NATO. And in the face of what can be considered US aggression would we even have to? Its a mutual defence pact, not a military alliance to wage war.
Cheers
Andrew
Well. Europe could just opt to say couple harsh words for US's opponent. After all that satisfies NATO's agreement. Nothing in NATO articles demand to give military aid. Indeed only thing it requires is give aid. Type of which is left up for giver.
That's why joining NATO is pretty much useless. What would Finland get out of it for example? Certainly we wouldn't be quaranteed of getting military aid if Russia comes knocking on our doorsteps. US&rest could simply say to Russia "stop the attack" and call it a day. And they wouldn't even be breaking the deal!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.
That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.
Very strange.
Only one problem with this message. You used present tense. "is". Correct term is "was".
tneva82 wrote: Well. Europe could just opt to say couple harsh words for US's opponent. After all that satisfies NATO's agreement. Nothing in NATO articles demand to give military aid. Indeed only thing it requires is give aid. Type of which is left up for giver.
That's why joining NATO is pretty much useless. What would Finland get out of it for example? Certainly we wouldn't be quaranteed of getting military aid if Russia comes knocking on our doorsteps. US&rest could simply say to Russia "stop the attack" and call it a day. And they wouldn't even be breaking the deal!
You could say the same about any alliance. Even if there's a specific level of assistance promised it's not like you can complain that your allies didn't help you if you've been conquered by a Russian invasion. The value of an alliance like NATO is it makes the other side have to consider the possibility of allied nations getting involved. If you're not part of NATO and the Russians make a serious attempt at invading the US has no pressure at all to get involved, and Russia knows they have you isolated from all but the most token of attempts by the US to stop them. If you're part of NATO Russia has to be well aware of the fact that the US has pressure to make a serious attempt at defense or risk their other allies losing faith in the value of US promises of aid. The chance of a major US force meeting them at the border goes up significantly, as does the chance of that war escalating into WWIII. This is why neither the US nor Russia have made any attempts at attacking major allies of the other, and have limited their foreign adventures to proxy wars and interference in powerless countries that nobody cares about.
Pouncey wrote: If you want to stop something from happening, you can't simply set a price for doing it and expect that to solve the problem. You have to change the situation so that people don't want to do it in the first place.
Sort of but not quite. You're right that the extremity of the punishment rarely acts as a deterrent, but it isn't because people are willing to pay the penalty, whatever the penalty might be. It's actually because people don't think they're going to get caught. This is either because the odds of getting caught are very low, or because the individual doesn't assess the risk of being caught (either because they act in the heat of the moment, or because the individual is incapable of properly considering the risks and consequences of their actions). Whatever the reason, if you think you aren't getting caught, then the penalty doesn't matter.
It's because of this that criminologists have found no relationship between penalties and the rate of crime. However, there is a very strong relationship between police clearance rates and reduced crime rates. While there's not much that can be done about heat of the moment crimes or crimes committed by people too dumb to know they're likely to get caught, where people can see that criminals are regularly caught, the criminally inclined who are more sensible stop committing that crime.
d-usa wrote: Random musing, just because I saw the conversation on the good old Facebook.
There was an article about Starbucks hiring 10,000 refugees over the next 5 years. In the comments people are bitching about "why aren't you hiring veterans instead" and "veterans over refugees". I thought about pointing out that statistically, veterans have killed more people in the US than refugees, but I figured that it isn't a rabbit hole worth jumping into
Not to be a wet blanket, but isn't this kind-of illegal? If they are hiring 10,000 refugees, that is giving preferential treatment in hiring based on nation of origin, which is against equal employment laws.
Peregrine wrote: IMO it would have to be something absolutely clear and undeniable, and likely something criminal rather than merely unethical.
Yeah, it would have to be clearly and obviously beyond the pale. For that reason I thought the odds of such an act being done in the first two years, and uncovered and clearly shown to the public to be almost impossible a few weeks ago. The timeframe is too short. But having seen the combination of recklessness and incompetence shown by Trump and his administration in his short time in office, I know think it has some possibility, even if it is still remote.
Trump is just way too useful as a meatshield for the rest of the party. As long as he's merely a bad president and not a criminal president they can do all the horrible stuff on their agenda and let Trump continue to draw all the hate. It might hurt them in 2018, but it will probably do less damage in the long run if 2016-2020 is known as "the Trump years" and not "the republican years". The party as a whole can campaign in the post-Trump era on "well, he was never really a republican anyway" and reject responsibility for anything that happened.
Absolutely agree. I think it's the key point Democrats need to pick up on. Most of Trump's truly horrible policies aren't just Trump things, they're Republican things. The whole party needs to branded with what he is doing.
It probably won't happen though. In the wake of the Bush disaster Democrats managed to get the Republicans as a whole to be seen as responsible for his stuff ups, but it didn't last long. This time the case needs to be clearly made - Bush and Trump coming out of that party and being disasters isn't just a coincidence, it is what the Republicans are right now.
I assumed the Republican politicians were just going to go along with whatever Trump says because of party solidarity.
Solidarity ceases to exist when your own seat is on the line. Remember back to when Trump's polling numbers plummeted, esp in the wake of the release of the tape with him bragging about sexually molesting women. Republicans disavowed Trump, not because of principle, but because he was seen as hurting their own electoral chances. When Trump's numbers recovered many of them quietly stopped their calls not to support him, and now he's won they're working with him in office.
Given Trump's incredible ability to survive political scandals that would destroy anyone else, it's probably true that many Republicans will be reluctant to move too quickly to stop supporting him in another scandal. But if something happens to collapse his numbers for a lasting period then they'll be gone like rats on a sinking ship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Well. Europe could just opt to say couple harsh words for US's opponent. After all that satisfies NATO's agreement. Nothing in NATO articles demand to give military aid. Indeed only thing it requires is give aid. Type of which is left up for giver.
Where do you get this stuff?
I mean, it is true that Article 5 only says 'aid', but everything around that shows that 'harsh words' or insufficient non-military aid is utterly insufficient to meet the defensive arrangement in place.
The language of article 5 is clear that it is all about a combined military response to a military attack against a member nation. While one or more members could, technically, just send two donkeys and packet of gum as their 'aid'... this is clearly understood as insufficient and would only happen if all of a sudden all the other members of NATO decided they didn't actually want to be part of NATO anymore.
Arguing that NATO members don't actually have to honour the treaty in a meaningful sense isn't an argument against NATO, it's an argument against all treaties, and a basic rejection of the idea of mutual self interest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
Actually, as the Democrats have steadily dropped their old school protectionism and other unionist policies, they've actually moved to fit the classical definition of liberal rather perfectly.
Meanwhile, there's a perfectly good term to describe modern conservatives - 'reactionaries'.
tneva82 wrote: Well. Europe could just opt to say couple harsh words for US's opponent. After all that satisfies NATO's agreement. Nothing in NATO articles demand to give military aid. Indeed only thing it requires is give aid. Type of which is left up for giver.
That's why joining NATO is pretty much useless. What would Finland get out of it for example? Certainly we wouldn't be quaranteed of getting military aid if Russia comes knocking on our doorsteps. US&rest could simply say to Russia "stop the attack" and call it a day. And they wouldn't even be breaking the deal!
You could say the same about any alliance. Even if there's a specific level of assistance promised it's not like you can complain that your allies didn't help you if you've been conquered by a Russian invasion. The value of an alliance like NATO is it makes the other side have to consider the possibility of allied nations getting involved. If you're not part of NATO and the Russians make a serious attempt at invading the US has no pressure at all to get involved, and Russia knows they have you isolated from all but the most token of attempts by the US to stop them. If you're part of NATO Russia has to be well aware of the fact that the US has pressure to make a serious attempt at defense or risk their other allies losing faith in the value of US promises of aid. The chance of a major US force meeting them at the border goes up significantly, as does the chance of that war escalating into WWIII. This is why neither the US nor Russia have made any attempts at attacking major allies of the other, and have limited their foreign adventures to proxy wars and interference in powerless countries that nobody cares about.
One alliance could say "we will send troops to help you". In that case not sending would be breaking terms which might discourage not sending if needed. Another alliance is "we must do something but it's up to us to decide what it is" which means they have much less incentive to actually send troops.
I would rather sign treaty that at least makes not sending troops contract violation rather than "we fulfilled our part of the bargain 100%" treaty.
NATO member or not. If it doesn't suit US they will get involved. If situation suits US fine they don't get involved NATO treaty or not. Only difference is with NATO they don't actually have to break their words. They are fulfilling 100% of what they agreed to do in the first place.
Pouncey wrote: That's simply a result of the price being too high to be worth the benefits.
Most people have something they're willing to die for, but they're not willing to die for everything.
I don't understand what your point is. Most people have at least one thing they're willing to die for, but what does that have to do with the death penalty and crime? Most of those things people are willing to die for aren't crimes, and most people aren't willing to die to commit the typical crimes that get the death penalty. It doesn't matter if, in theory, you'd be willing to die to save your family in a "not enough lifeboats for everyone" situation when the question is whether you'd be willing to die to kill the boss you're frustrated with.
Catching people is irrelevant here.
The point is to remove the motivation to do it in the first place.
By "catching" I mean "removing the motivation from everyone". You can address some of the common motivations, but no "remove the motivation" plan is going to cover everything.
And I simply took it as a given that 100% eliminating something is impossible, so I didn't mention it.
And that impossibility is why you need punishment as a deterrent, because no matter how much you work to remove the motivation to commit crimes people are still going to want to do it.
A couple of things.
First, this applies to every punishment for every crime, not just the death penalty. I only specified death penalty because it was the most extreme example.
Second, I never said you shouldn't have penalties for breaking rules. Just that it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
sebster wrote: The question really is whether Trump will do something with a decent case for impeachment, that will be discovered and substantiated before November 2018.
sebster wrote: The question really is whether Trump will do something with a decent case for impeachment, that will be discovered and substantiated before November 2018.
What happens in November 2018?
Congress gets new members thus theoretically allowing dems to gain majority?
Though have read couple analysists that don't bode well. Seems not THAT many republicans have really a fight on their hand to maintain position while some democrats are in more contested states. Could be wrong though.
tneva82 wrote: Congress gets new members thus theoretically allowing dems to gain majority?
How would that stop impeachment? Wouldn't it facilitate it if anything?
That's what they're saying.
Every 2 years in the US we hold Congressional Elections.
However, the House is responsible for passing Impeachment Charges, and it's unlikely the Republicans will lose the House. If Trump were to do something to get impeached it would need to be serious enough even the Republicans couldn't afford to let it go, and between the Republican Party's generally loose hold on reality and Trump's obsession with popularity over anything else I'm not sure anything falling into that really tiny gray area is gonna happen.
Frazzled wrote: Well he did invent the doctrine thats its perfectly fine to kill US citizens as long as they aren't in the US...at least that we know about.
US citizens who are actively involved in assisting a foreign power engaged in a war with the US. Having US citizenship shouldn't magically make a person no longer a valid military target.
Determined by what court of law there boyo? I'll wait.
When was the hearing where his counsel cross examined the witnesses? What witnesses.
Also what Declaration of War?
You're defending distatorship, but hey it was your guy so it was good. but now the other team is in power so its bad. Got it.
Purple follows purple leader. Green follows green leader...
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Oh. The way sebster wrote it, it seemed more like after that date it would be impossible, or at least way harder, to impeach him.
I read it more like "until that date there's not much chance of impeachment". Ie that's the date after which it MIGHT be possibility assuming dems can archieve majority. Which they might or might not.
tneva82 wrote: Though have read couple analysists that don't bode well. Seems not THAT many republicans have really a fight on their hand to maintain position while some democrats are in more contested states. Could be wrong though.
What you've read is correct, its a strong set of states for Republicans. But the same set of states were up in 2006 and Democrats monstered the results, thanks in large part to the unpopularity of the Republican president. It took Bush 6 years to get that unpopular while Trump will only have had 2, but having seen the last week I think Trump might be able to give it a crack.
tneva82 wrote: Though have read couple analysists that don't bode well. Seems not THAT many republicans have really a fight on their hand to maintain position while some democrats are in more contested states. Could be wrong though.
What you've read is correct, its a strong set of states for Republicans. But the same set of states were up in 2006 and Democrats monstered the results, thanks in large part to the unpopularity of the Republican president. It took Bush 6 years to get that unpopular while Trump will only have had 2, but having seen the last week I think Trump might be able to give it a crack.
Yeah it's possible. But not as clear cut as some are hoping. The state system helps republicans so dems need to activate their voters this time.
tneva82 wrote: Though have read couple analysists that don't bode well. Seems not THAT many republicans have really a fight on their hand to maintain position while some democrats are in more contested states. Could be wrong though.
What you've read is correct, its a strong set of states for Republicans. But the same set of states were up in 2006 and Democrats monstered the results, thanks in large part to the unpopularity of the Republican president. It took Bush 6 years to get that unpopular while Trump will only have had 2, but having seen the last week I think Trump might be able to give it a crack.
Yeah it's possible. But not as clear cut as some are hoping. The state system helps republicans so dems need to activate their voters this time.
In heavily gerrymandered districts, it doesn't actually matter how heavily the dems mobilize their voterbase...because the republicans have set things up so that the dem voter blocs are effectively negated.
There's similar in dem controlled states, but at this point? Don't care. Dems aren't in the business of passing legislation that is downright hurtful to the country.
However, the House is responsible for passing Impeachment Charges, and it's unlikely the Republicans will lose the House.
Republicans have a structural advantage in the House, but its power is overstated. As above I'll mention 2006 - an unpopular Republican president is more than enough to give Democrats a win. In fact, in recent history Democrats have won the vote total for the house 3 times, and only once have Republicans won the House anyway.
The bigger issue winning the House is thr democratic base not voting down the ticket, or not turning up at all. And that may be an incumbency issue, which could flip now with a Republican in the whitehouse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: I read it more like "until that date there's not much chance of impeachment". Ie that's the date after which it MIGHT be possibility assuming dems can archieve majority. Which they might or might not.
Nah that's not what I said. Consider its the start of 2018, Trump has approval ratings around 20 to 25%, and there's a scandal which is near impossible to deny.
Think about the political decision facing each Republican up for election at the end of that year. Do they risk being labeled as protectors of the crooked, massively unpopular president? It becomes a tough choice.
If anything, if Trump is massively unpopular then impeachment after 2018 becomea pointless. It would solve the Trump problem for Republicans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Yeah it's possible. But not as clear cut as some are hoping. The state system helps republicans so dems need to activate their voters this time.
There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
It may take a little bit, but I'm sure that FOIA laws require that research with public funding is public. So that should make it through the courts before too long if it sticks.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
OgreChubbs wrote: I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
If we only had a way to get everyone covered for health care.
As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
It may take a little bit, but I'm sure that FOIA laws require that research with public funding is public. So that should make it through the courts before too long if it sticks.
That's not going to help much if there's no research being done in the first place. He's gagging them and suppressing existing research in the short term, but in the long term the guy from Trump's transition team who had responsibility for the EPA says Trump intends to drastically cut the department, with a focus on getting rid of researchers and defunding climate research.
OgreChubbs wrote: Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
I would expect lack of healthcare to hurt babies way more than abortions, as the former let them be sick when available treatment could save them, and the former doesn't concern babies but fetuses…
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
And we've got 4 more years of this...
In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
And we've got 4 more years of this...
In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.
In the old days, yes, but in modern times, when it was a beacon of the free world, Americans wouldn't have worried themselves about a few hundred refugees.
It goes against every American value, not to mention its own history.
It may take a little bit, but I'm sure that FOIA laws require that research with public funding is public. So that should make it through the courts before too long if it sticks.
That's not going to help much if there's no research being done in the first place. He's gagging them and suppressing existing research in the short term, but in the long term the guy from Trump's transition team who had responsibility for the EPA says Trump intends to drastically cut the department, with a focus on getting rid of researchers and defunding climate research.
From his picks for cabinet members who have stakes in fossil fuels, and negative views on the EPA and even trump himself with the Dakota pipeline. I am sure that had nothing to do with those decisions.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
And we've got 4 more years of this...
In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.
In the old days, yes, but in modern times, when it was a beacon of the free world, Americans wouldn't have worried themselves about a few hundred refugees.
It goes against every American value, not to mention its own history.
I just pointed out it very much fits its own history. Further the 120 day ban is in line with the Obama ban on Iraq. WE have no duty to take anyone from anywhere. Frankly, I'd reserve legal immigration slots to Latin America which is far more relevant then say the UK.
I am wondering if the media is feeling most if not all the hate. Them declaring a Muslim ban when it is a whole ban across the whole country just fuels ignorance and hate of the goverment. A lot of what the media does now a days is just click bait it seems.
I just think a lot of the current......... movements is just ignorance brought on by a few not the smartest people falling for click bait.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
And we've got 4 more years of this...
In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.
In the old days, yes, but in modern times, when it was a beacon of the free world, Americans wouldn't have worried themselves about a few hundred refugees.
It goes against every American value, not to mention its own history.
I just pointed out it very much fits its own history. Further the 120 day ban is in line with the Obama ban on Iraq. WE have no duty to take anyone from anywhere. Frankly, I'd reserve legal immigration slots to Latin America which is far more relevant then say the UK.
Yeah, let's not pretend the history of the US is all love and acceptance. This is a country that kept institutional slavery long past most of the rest of the civilized world, obliterated native populations, segregated it's own population, and interned its own people based on race. Heck, women weren't even allowed to vote. The wealthy have long used differences to keep the working classes from being effectively mobilized. Ignorance, cruelty and discrimination have long had political power in this nation. It is only relatively recently that some measure of equality has been achieved, and not without vocal, and often violent, resistance.
OgreChubbs wrote: I am wondering if the media is feeling most if not all the hate. Them declaring a Muslim ban when it is a whole ban across the whole country just fuels ignorance and hate of the goverment. A lot of what the media does now a days is just click bait it seems.
I just think a lot of the current......... movements is just ignorance brought on by a few not the smartest people falling for click bait.
Some would say the same of how Trump got elected along with "Alternative Facts"
Here's a fun little thought for the xenophobic Chicken Littles to digest. The late Steve Jobs, Apple Inc.’s co-founder, is the biological son of an muslim immigrant from Syria, one of the seven mostly Muslim countries targeted by the administration.
That's right. The world's largest publicly held corporation, by maket cap, is Apple. It is a cutting-edge, world leading US business, co-founded by the biological son of a Syrian muslim immigrant. Think about that when donkey-cave-in-chief peddles his Islamaphobia bs, blanket banning whole countries of people seeking a life free of oppression and potentially burying the next Steve Jobs from happening.
BigWaaagh wrote: Here's a fun little thought for the xenophobic Chicken Littles to digest. The late Steve Jobs, Apple Inc.’s co-founder, is the biological son of an muslim immigrant from Syria, one of the seven mostly Muslim countries targeted by the administration.
That's right. The world's largest publicly held corporation, by maket cap, is Apple. It is a cutting-edge, world leading US business, co-founded by the biological son of a Syrian muslim immigrant. Think about that when donkey-cave-in-chief peddles his Islamaphobia bs, blanket banning whole countries of people seeking a life free of oppression and potentially burying the next Steve Jobs from happening.
Google's co-founder Sergey Brin is also an immigrant to the US.
BigWaaagh wrote: Here's a fun little thought for the xenophobic Chicken Littles to digest. The late Steve Jobs, Apple Inc.’s co-founder, is the biological son of an muslim immigrant from Syria, one of the seven mostly Muslim countries targeted by the administration.
That's right. The world's largest publicly held corporation, by maket cap, is Apple. It is a cutting-edge, world leading US business, co-founded by the biological son of a Syrian muslim immigrant. Think about that when donkey-cave-in-chief peddles his Islamaphobia bs, blanket banning whole countries of people seeking a life free of oppression and potentially burying the next Steve Jobs from happening.
Google's co-founder Sergey Brin is also an immigrant to the US.
Actually, over half of the top 20 U.S. tech companies were founded or are currently led by someone who came from another country. But, you know, let's build a wall...both physical and implied...and all that.
A U.S. commando died and three others were wounded carrying out a deadly dawn raid on the al Qaeda militant group in southern Yemen on Sunday, in the first military operation authorized by President Donald Trump.
The U.S. military said it killed 14 militants in a raid on a powerful al Qaeda branch that has been a frequent target of U.S. drone strikes. Medics at the scene, however, said around 30 people, including 10 women and children, were killed.
Two more U.S. servicemen were injured when an American military aircraft was sent to evacuate the wounded commandos but came under fire and had to be "intentionally destroyed in place," the Pentagon said.
The new U.S. president called the operation a success and said intelligence gathered during the operation would help the United States fight terrorism.
"Americans are saddened this morning with news that a life of a heroic service member has been taken in our fight against the evil of radical Islamic terrorism," Trump said in a statement.
The gunbattle in the rural Yakla district of al-Bayda province killed a senior leader in Yemen's al Qaeda branch, Abdulraoof al-Dhahab, along with other militants, al Qaeda said.
Eight-year-old Anwar al-Awlaki, the daughter of U.S.-born Yemeni preacher and al Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, was among the children killed in the raid, according to her grandfather. Her father was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
"She was hit with a bullet in her neck and suffered for two hours," Nasser al-Awlaki told Reuters. "Why kill children? This is the new (U.S.) administration - it's very sad, a big crime."
In a statement, the Pentagon did not refer to any civilian casualties, although a U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they could not be ruled out.
The Defence Department said the raid netted "information that will likely provide insight into the planning of future terror plots."
The American elite forces did not seize any militants or take any prisoners offsite, the official said, adding that the group had come under fire.
The Pentagon did not say how the team's one death occurred, and the U.S. military official declined to give details on the fatality.
The operation's goal was to gather intelligence on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is regarded as one of the global militant group's most dangerous branches, the official said.
DAWN ATTACK
"The operation began at dawn when a drone bombed the home of Abdulraoof al-Dhahab and then helicopters flew up and unloaded paratroopers at his house and killed everyone inside," said one resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"Next, the gunmen opened fire at the U.S. soldiers who left the area, and the helicopters bombed the gunmen and a number of homes and led to a large number of casualties."
A Yemeni security officer and a local official corroborated that account. Fahd, a local resident who asked that only his first name be used, said several bodies remained under debris and that houses and the local mosque were damaged in the attack.
In a message on its official Telegram messaging account, al Qaeda mourned al-Dhahab as a "holy warrior" and other slain militants, without specifying how many of its fighters were killed.
American forces have not conducted any special operations in Yemen since December 2014, months before nearly two years of civil war rendered the country even more dangerous and offered al Qaeda leeway to expand into more lawless areas.
The United States conducted dozens of drone strikes in Yemen throughout Barack Obama's presidency to combat al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, regarded as one of the global militant group's most dangerous branches.
The local al Qaeda unit organised the Charlie Hebdo magazine attack in Paris in 2015 and has repeatedly tried to down U.S. airliners.
(Additional reporting by Mohammed El Sherif in Cairo; Writing By Noah Browning and Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Susan Fenton and Jonathan Oatis)
nasty business all around.
Two more U.S. servicemen were injured when an American military aircraft was sent to evacuate the wounded commandos but came under fire and had to be "intentionally destroyed in place," the Pentagon said
..this is a bit like when they had to blow up the 'copter during the Bin Laden raid right ?
or am I getting totally wrong end of the stick here ?
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
A U.S. commando died and three others were wounded carrying out a deadly dawn raid on the al Qaeda militant group in southern Yemen on Sunday, in the first military operation authorized by President Donald Trump.
The U.S. military said it killed 14 militants in a raid on a powerful al Qaeda branch that has been a frequent target of U.S. drone strikes. Medics at the scene, however, said around 30 people, including 10 women and children, were killed.
Two more U.S. servicemen were injured when an American military aircraft was sent to evacuate the wounded commandos but came under fire and had to be "intentionally destroyed in place," the Pentagon said.
The new U.S. president called the operation a success and said intelligence gathered during the operation would help the United States fight terrorism.
"Americans are saddened this morning with news that a life of a heroic service member has been taken in our fight against the evil of radical Islamic terrorism," Trump said in a statement.
The gunbattle in the rural Yakla district of al-Bayda province killed a senior leader in Yemen's al Qaeda branch, Abdulraoof al-Dhahab, along with other militants, al Qaeda said.
Eight-year-old Anwar al-Awlaki, the daughter of U.S.-born Yemeni preacher and al Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, was among the children killed in the raid, according to her grandfather. Her father was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
"She was hit with a bullet in her neck and suffered for two hours," Nasser al-Awlaki told Reuters. "Why kill children? This is the new (U.S.) administration - it's very sad, a big crime."
In a statement, the Pentagon did not refer to any civilian casualties, although a U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they could not be ruled out.
The Defence Department said the raid netted "information that will likely provide insight into the planning of future terror plots."
The American elite forces did not seize any militants or take any prisoners offsite, the official said, adding that the group had come under fire.
The Pentagon did not say how the team's one death occurred, and the U.S. military official declined to give details on the fatality.
The operation's goal was to gather intelligence on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is regarded as one of the global militant group's most dangerous branches, the official said.
DAWN ATTACK
"The operation began at dawn when a drone bombed the home of Abdulraoof al-Dhahab and then helicopters flew up and unloaded paratroopers at his house and killed everyone inside," said one resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"Next, the gunmen opened fire at the U.S. soldiers who left the area, and the helicopters bombed the gunmen and a number of homes and led to a large number of casualties."
A Yemeni security officer and a local official corroborated that account. Fahd, a local resident who asked that only his first name be used, said several bodies remained under debris and that houses and the local mosque were damaged in the attack.
In a message on its official Telegram messaging account, al Qaeda mourned al-Dhahab as a "holy warrior" and other slain militants, without specifying how many of its fighters were killed.
American forces have not conducted any special operations in Yemen since December 2014, months before nearly two years of civil war rendered the country even more dangerous and offered al Qaeda leeway to expand into more lawless areas.
The United States conducted dozens of drone strikes in Yemen throughout Barack Obama's presidency to combat al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, regarded as one of the global militant group's most dangerous branches.
The local al Qaeda unit organised the Charlie Hebdo magazine attack in Paris in 2015 and has repeatedly tried to down U.S. airliners.
(Additional reporting by Mohammed El Sherif in Cairo; Writing By Noah Browning and Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Susan Fenton and Jonathan Oatis)
nasty business all around.
Two more U.S. servicemen were injured when an American military aircraft was sent to evacuate the wounded commandos but came under fire and had to be "intentionally destroyed in place," the Pentagon said
..this is a bit like when they had to blow up the 'copter during the Bin Laden raid right ?
or am I getting totally wrong end of the stick here ?
This is all circular and now more will join up to the extremist cause.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
So wait, the Democrats are Neo-marxists?
How did you get to that conclusion?
I think marxism is a wee bit of a stretch...
They're more statistthan anything... be sure to bow before the altar of Big Government™ on the way out.
Eight-year-old Anwar al-Awlaki, the daughter of U.S.-born Yemeni preacher and al Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, was among the children killed in the raid, according to her grandfather. Her father was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
Eight-year-old Anwar al-Awlaki, the daughter of U.S.-born Yemeni preacher and al Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, was among the children killed in the raid, according to her grandfather. Her father was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
And we've got 4 more years of this...
In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.
In the old days, yes, but in modern times, when it was a beacon of the free world, Americans wouldn't have worried themselves about a few hundred refugees.
It goes against every American value, not to mention its own history.
No, not just back in the "old days." We had immigration quotas and bans decades after we had the Statue of Liberty in 1886 and after we added the New Colossus poem in 1903. And we were still have caps and limits on immigration and visas to this day that were last adjusted in the 1990s. Immigration quotas, limits and bans aren't un-American because they've been in action throughout American history. Now that doesn't mean that this current EO by Trump is good policy or necessary but it's certainly not unprecedented or unAmericcan.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
Yes, they are. Bad in different ways on different issues mostly but there's also plenty of common ground where they're equally bad. Both parties are very good at ignoring the constitution and pesky things like Due Process, when it gets in their way.
So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?
I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.
There's lots of stupid laws they can get rid of. Apparently in North Dakota it's illegal to have beer and pretzels at the same time. Also, in Alabama, you're not allowed to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. So there's 2 right there..
Necros wrote: There's lots of stupid laws they can get rid of. Apparently in North Dakota it's illegal to have beer and pretzels at the same time. Also, in Alabama, you're not allowed to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. So there's 2 right there..
Now you know why North Dakota only has a population of 6 people...Bakken oil field workers notwithstanding.
Wouldn't they just be better off having a purge of obsolete laws, and then introduce any that they actually need?
I don't doubt there's literally thousands of pointless laws, but it seems like a stupid way to go about repealing them. You might get on quite well if you hire a lawyer in each state, and have them spend 6-12 months nominating stuff to be removed.
Herzlos wrote: Wouldn't they just be better off having a purge of obsolete laws, and then introduce any that they actually need?
I don't doubt there's literally thousands of pointless laws, but it seems like a stupid way to go about repealing them. You might get on quite well if you hire a lawyer in each state, and have them spend 6-12 months nominating stuff to be removed.
They're not "laws" in literal sense... they're regulations (or interpretations) that's authorized by legal statutes.
Many laws purposely allows an agency to enact regulations, as long as said law expressly allows for it.
This EO is a clumsy... but, may be effective since we have a plethora of WTF/WTH regulations.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?
Necros wrote: There's lots of stupid laws they can get rid of. Apparently in North Dakota it's illegal to have beer and pretzels at the same time. Also, in Alabama, you're not allowed to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. So there's 2 right there..
Those are state laws, Trump's EO is only in regards to Federal laws and really doesn't apply to laws at all. Congress can pass a new law anytime it has the votes to do so regardless of what the PotUS wants. Trump is trying to address new Federal regulations which he can do because he can tell his cabinet what to do and his cabinet runs all the Federal departments so Trump, technically, controls all of the Federal bureaucracy that creates Federal regulations.
There's plenty of room for debate in regards to Federal regulations. Not all regulations are of equal importance or need. There are Federal regulations that do useful things like set safety standards for the interstate transportation of hazardous materials and there are Federal regulations that a product of crony capitalism that stifles competition within an industry to benefit established leaders that lobby for regulations that put them in advantageous positions. There are plenty of Federal regulations that we could live without but we need to actually take the time to examine and evaluate all of them and not just treat them as all being bad. Weeding out counter productive regulations is a good idea that would help the economy but doing what Trump is doing is just stupid.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?
Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.
The two people you're quoting are an Aussie and a Canadien, I don't think either is a registered Republican or even eligible to vote in US elections. I could be wrong but I don't think OgreChubbs is secretly Reince Preibus or Karl Rove.
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
So wait, the Democrats are Neo-marxists?
How did you get to that conclusion?
Well depends on how you define the term
I mean Marx was all about the tragedy of men reduced to mere capital for the powerful and how that is a system doomed to destroy itself, which does seem like something American Liberals might agree with
As a non American I have found the election and now Trump Administration quite interesting, particularly the E.O Trump can do. I personally don't see the point of halting people in U.S airports but I do understand the need for tougher immigration laws against certain nationalities. I don't see Trumps E.O as a 'Muslim Ban' but I do see it as a way to halt the Refugee Crisis. All the countries involved with his E.O are yes Muslim, but each country is a complete and utter mess of political extremist opposites and government coups. The problem is you let one family in, they need a home, social security, language lessons, education lessons, school places etc and then said family want their 50 other relatives to join them in the same area. That makes a huge logistical nightmare through paper work and public funding.
Going back to Trump, overall I believe he will a benefit to the U.S.A. He is force of change, something Obama struggled to achieve in 8 years due to the Republicans. People will never agree on everything he says, but he is a focal point for topics which have never been discussed globally on such a level. What I do like about Trump is his business sense and we will definitely see new global trade deals between countries and hopefully faster growing economies in all countries.
The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?
The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?
Probably the same way people think that trade deals and international relations can be improved by trying to deal with someone who doesn't even care enough to spell your Prime Minister's name right.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?
Its not bad. No noncitizen has a right to enter the USA, or any nation they are not a citizen of. Thats pretty freaking basic.
Considering many European countries have puched back similarly, the hypocrisy is impressive. How about all those refugees sitting in near the chunnel? Thats ok but America bad.
The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?
He has already shown himself to be bad. Bad for everybody except filthy rich white. Regular people(especially poor and middle class americans but also YOUR wallet) are getting hurt. People, including americans, are going to die because of his actions. He will make terrorism increase. isis are thrilled at this.
The more he does the worse it's going to be. Luckily america suffers most but unless you are filthy rich white american you too will feel it
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
It's clear by the letter sent by outgoing CEO Howard Schultz to Starbucks employees that Schultz disapproves of Trump's EO but Starbucks isn't hiring 10,000 refugees in the US. Starbucks plans to hire 10,000 new employees who qualify as refugees, based on UN standards for the term, spread across the 75 countries wherein Starbucks has open locations over the course of the next 5 years. How many of those new hires will be made in the US remains to be seen but it's likely to be a small portion of the 10,000.
There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business. And we will start this effort here in the U.S. by making the initial focus of our hiring efforts on those individuals who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel in the various countries where our military has asked for such support.
Herzlos wrote: So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?
I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.
I'm pretty sure the executive has no power to order or enforce something like that...
Herzlos wrote: So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?
I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.
I'm pretty sure the executive has no power to order or enforce something like that...
Correct. EOs can't change or create or strike down Federal laws. The PotUS does have control over Federal regulations and can issue EOs regarding regulations because the cabinet controls the Federal depts/bureaucracy and they take orders from PotUS.
The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?
He has already shown himself to be bad. Bad for everybody except filthy rich white. Regular people(especially poor and middle class americans but also YOUR wallet) are getting hurt. People, including americans, are going to die because of his actions. He will make terrorism increase. isis are thrilled at this.
The more he does the worse it's going to be. Luckily america suffers most but unless you are filthy rich white american you too will feel it
I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.
What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.
There is no proof that Trump increases terrorism, if anything his pursuing policies of making the US harder to enter and giving your CIA free reign to interrogate terrorists should make it harder for Terrorists. You are currently more likely to see a misguided anti-Trump protester or individual using that as an excuse to cause a terrorist incident in the U.S.A.
I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?
The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?
He has already shown himself to be bad. Bad for everybody except filthy rich white. Regular people(especially poor and middle class americans but also YOUR wallet) are getting hurt. People, including americans, are going to die because of his actions. He will make terrorism increase. isis are thrilled at this.
The more he does the worse it's going to be. Luckily america suffers most but unless you are filthy rich white american you too will feel it
I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.
What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.
There is no proof that Trump increases terrorism, if anything his pursuing policies of making the US harder to enter and giving your CIA free reign to interrogate terrorists should make it harder for Terrorists. You are currently more likely to see a misguided anti-Trump protester or individual using that as an excuse to cause a terrorist incident in the U.S.A.
I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?
One China policy is better than nuclear war. And it's one of the reasons that China never built up it's nuclear armament, as we had a sort of unspoken agreement of neutrality. We might see that reverse in the rhetoric continues from the Trump admin,
As far as him getting elected, there's a quirk in out system that means people can get elected without a majority of the vote if they get the vote int he right places, and he did. Not to mention a lot of the Democrats are winy little bitches who won't vote for a candidate unless they are prefect in every way, and would rather have a horrid candidate win than dare stain thier contence with voting for a good but flawed candidate. And the twenty years of hate and bile that have been spewed towards HRC hasn't helped.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?
Herzlos wrote: Wouldn't they just be better off having a purge of obsolete laws, and then introduce any that they actually need?
I don't doubt there's literally thousands of pointless laws, but it seems like a stupid way to go about repealing them. You might get on quite well if you hire a lawyer in each state, and have them spend 6-12 months nominating stuff to be removed.
They're not "laws" in literal sense... they're regulations (or interpretations) that's authorized by legal statutes.
Many laws purposely allows an agency to enact regulations, as long as said law expressly allows for it.
This EO is a clumsy... but, may be effective since we have a plethora of WTF/WTH regulations.
The problem is this is about the most asinine way possible to go about it, and will almost certainly result in lots of good regulations being gotten rid of to enrich certain parties at the expense of the public.
"Sorry, y'all wanted new safety standards for 2017 cars, we're gonna have to drop seatbelts and crumple zones to get that enhanced rollcage protection".
This is how we end up with a nationwide West Virginia.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?
You're misconstruing what Schultz said. Starbucks is hiring 10k people who qualify as the UN definition of refugee over the next 5 years across the 75 countries Starbucks operates in. Starbucks didn't say they would hire 10k refugees in the US. Starbucks is cutting jobs in the US. I don't know what the going rate is for hourly pay in the majority of the 75 countries Starbucks operates in so who knows if Starbucks pays well there or not?
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?
You're misconstruing what Schultz said. Starbucks is hiring 10k people who qualify as the UN definition of refugee over the next 5 years across the 75 countries Starbucks operates in. Starbucks didn't say they would hire 10k refugees in the US. Starbucks is cutting jobs in the US. I don't know what the going rate is for hourly pay in the majority of the 75 countries Starbucks operates in so who knows if Starbucks pays well there or not?
The rate of pay will differ immensely in each country, as each country sets a different rate of pay, some are quite frankly appalling and that's why people move to other countries for work. The terrible thing is companies are planning expansion based on the predicted rates of refugees in years to come. I know the worlds not perfect, but we shouldn't have to have a continuous flow of Refugees for the next 5 years. I haven't looked into it, but I think the UN is now changing the rules on who actually classes as a Refugee. This is because over the last 3 years many middle eastern and central African economic migrants were abusing the system and were getting classed as Refugees when they weren't. This has made it a lot harder for real Refugees.
Until Trumps E.O I didn't realise the U.S.A was accepting Syrian Refugees as the global policy was they had to register Asylum in the first country they landed in. (I know most ignored that and crossed borders to try and get into the country they wanted to stay in.) So has the US flown Refugees in especially or have other countries just passed them on flights?
It may take a little bit, but I'm sure that FOIA laws require that research with public funding is public. So that should make it through the courts before too long if it sticks.
It's a basic principle of science to share results, data, methods etc. It is fundamental to the way scientific research is carried out.
OgreChubbs wrote: Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
I would expect lack of healthcare to hurt babies way more than abortions, as the former let them be sick when available treatment could save them, and the former doesn't concern babies but fetuses…
The proportion of late term abortions is very small and they are only carried out for medical necessity.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.
So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.
Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.
Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?
And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...
And we've got 4 more years of this...
In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.
That is why a law was brought in against it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: I am wondering if the media is feeling most if not all the hate. Them declaring a Muslim ban when it is a whole ban across the whole country just fuels ignorance and hate of the goverment. A lot of what the media does now a days is just click bait it seems.
I just think a lot of the current......... movements is just ignorance brought on by a few not the smartest people falling for click bait.
The ban on Syrians has an exception for Christian Syrians, thus it effectively is a ban on Muslim Syrians, not a ban across the whole country.
I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.
The trickle down theory has been proven false long time ago.
What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.
The 7 country ban alone will help ISIS recruit people. This is just what ISIS has been hoping. This allows them to recruit more people that gets radicalized which WILL mean more terrorist attacks.
I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?
Change isn't automatically good and in this case it would be bad.
Funny thing is things were already changing for BETTER. In pretty much every measurement it's been steady climb up in America. Unemployment reduced, poor&middle class have got wealthier, crimes are down etc etc etc etc. Pretty much only thing that's been going worse is goverment debt and that started going downhill already with Bush&co. You don't change that easily.
Only Trump's alternative facts are saying it has been going worse.
And btw you don't even need to be good president to get voted. Technically speaking in US 25 or so people could vote somebody into president over 100M+ votes...
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?
Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.
And you don't bother with the drastic difference between medically necessary proceedures, "quality of life" proceedures like where they tried to convince my wife to abort our Down Syndrome son (Who has recovered from heart surgery and is developing much faster than average for a child with his condition), or a woman who can't be inconvenienced by a pregnancy? Don't act like every single abortion is some epic lifesaving event, well over half are post-conception contraception. Wrap your head around that.
Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
Herzlos wrote: So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?
I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.
There are three reasons why this fundamentally is another stupid Trump slogan rather than a good idea.
1. The Law isn't a supermarket where you get BOGOF offers.
2. What is a "Law" anyway? Is it an entire bill, or a specific item (e.g. that in Michigan a motor vehicle doesn't need more than one functioning brake light.)
3. The law against murder is worth more than two laws against dancing on a Sunday or hanging men and women's underwear on the same clothesline.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whilst Trump has quickly made himself the most derided and despised president in history, he is still the occupant of the office of head of state of the USA and therefore his state visit to the UK should go ahead as planned. People must simply put up with it.
If he tries any funny stuff with the Queen, though, you can be sure that Bertha will give him a look to shrivel his balls off.
I honestly don't know why people like Starbucks. The lines are long, the waits are long, the employees are so often a bad joke, the prices are high, and to top it all off the coffee isn't that good.
I tried the shop near campus once years ago when the company was just starting to go from being big to mega big and I've never been back.
Their black filter coffee is pretty cheap and okay, partly because in the UK almost none of the cafes offers filter coffee. You can only get an Americano.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?
Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.
And you don't bother with the drastic difference between medically necessary proceedures, "quality of life" proceedures like where they tried to convince my wife to abort our Down Syndrome son (Who has recovered from heart surgery and is developing much faster than average for a child with his condition), or a woman who can't be inconvenienced by a pregnancy? Don't act like every single abortion is some epic lifesaving event, well over half are post-conception contraception. Wrap your head around that.
Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.
The trickle down theory has been proven false long time ago.
What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.
The 7 country ban alone will help ISIS recruit people. This is just what ISIS has been hoping. This allows them to recruit more people that gets radicalized which WILL mean more terrorist attacks.
I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?
Change isn't automatically good and in this case it would be bad.
Funny thing is things were already changing for BETTER. In pretty much every measurement it's been steady climb up in America. Unemployment reduced, poor&middle class have got wealthier, crimes are down etc etc etc etc. Pretty much only thing that's been going worse is goverment debt and that started going downhill already with Bush&co. You don't change that easily.
Only Trump's alternative facts are saying it has been going worse.
And btw you don't even need to be good president to get voted. Technically speaking in US 25 or so people could vote somebody into president over 100M+ votes...
Firstly your opinion about ISIS getting many recruits because of Trump is Negligible because they will never be able to recover from their recent losses. By the end of the year we will definitely see the fall of Mosul in Iraq and subsequently IS retreat back to the Syrian border. Hopefully by the end of the year we will hear that Raqqa is under siege. ISIS is loosing badly on all fronts and it is the beginning of the end for them. It is also ludicrous to think a genuine Refugee who wants to escape war and extremism would join said factions.
I do agree with you that change isn't always better but change is always the catalyst for progress.
Never trust government statistics, it never counts the millions or so people 'off the grid' on unemployment, or those on 0 hour contracts, or those in part time, or those not seeking work but on state funding. America has many traditional industries in terminal decline in different states. Trump stands to invest and keep them, and I couldn't agree more, coming from a country whose previous governments closed down, sold off and ruined key industries only to make the UK dependent on foreign imports is disastrous for local economies outside of city finance etc.
One thing I noticed, he successfully convinced Ford Motor Co to produce their new range of cars in US factories, when originally they were going to build cars in Mexican factories and then import them back to the USA.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
It's only a problem if Starbucks fires Americans to "create" those jobs. Which dovetails into another pending Trump EO. This one is near and dear as the situation has affected me, personally. I'm not going to post the entire article, just the bits that I wish the comment on. Link is provided for those who want to dive a bit deeper.
Trump’s Next Immigration Move to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. In many cases, the companies are hiring for highly technical positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff.
We've seen news about how Disney, some utility company in California, and others have abused the H-1B visa system by firing their entire American workforce and replacing them with people filling H-1B visa requests. The program was specifically set up so that people working on these visas would NOT be taking jobs away from Americans. I've sat in many interviews where I was directly competing for a job with dozens of people on H-1B visas. I kept wondering how these people were interviewing since they were not supposed to be competing against me for a job and also wondering why they didn't have work lined up before even setting foot in the USA? What is happening is that Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. are not hiring people. They are outsourcing those positions. Temp agencies are filling those spots and it's those temp agencies that are bringing in the H-1B visa applicants and flooding the job market with them.
“Immigrant STEM workers have contributed an outsize share to founding new companies, getting patents, and helping build up American companies, which in turn because of their success have created tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who does research in labor markets. “Discouraging such people to apply for visas to enter the United States to work -- I can’t imagine how that can be considered to be in the American national interest.”
This really grinds my gears. Burtless cannot possibly be that naïve so he's deliberately using a strawman argument to attack this EO. This isn't about discouraging people from applying, it's about stopping abuses here in the USA. Burtless can get bent.
In recent years though, outsourcing companies have received the most H-1B visas, while other tech companies have struggled to get all they want. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the top five recipients were all outsourcing companies, led by Tata Consultancy.
Ron Hira, an associate professor at Howard University, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.
I've known this for more than twenty years. I've had my contracts ended early several times because of the dirty stunts tech companies pull with these outsourcing agencies. The article mentions that Congress is working on legislation but they've been "working on legislation" for decades now and not done a damned thing to fix this situation.
All other circus act EO's aside, I must admit that I fully and whole heartedly support President Trump on this. H-1B reform has been LONG overdue and Congress has failed their constituents.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
It's only a problem if Starbucks fires Americans to "create" those jobs. Which dovetails into another pending Trump EO. This one is near and dear as the situation has affected me, personally. I'm not going to post the entire article, just the bits that I wish the comment on. Link is provided for those who want to dive a bit deeper.
Trump’s Next Immigration Move to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. In many cases, the companies are hiring for highly technical positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff.
We've seen news about how Disney, some utility company in California, and others have abused the H-1B visa system by firing their entire American workforce and replacing them with people filling H-1B visa requests. The program was specifically set up so that people working on these visas would NOT be taking jobs away from Americans. I've sat in many interviews where I was directly competing for a job with dozens of people on H-1B visas. I kept wondering how these people were interviewing since they were not supposed to be competing against me for a job and also wondering why they didn't have work lined up before even setting foot in the USA? What is happening is that Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. are not hiring people. They are outsourcing those positions. Temp agencies are filling those spots and it's those temp agencies that are bringing in the H-1B visa applicants and flooding the job market with them.
“Immigrant STEM workers have contributed an outsize share to founding new companies, getting patents, and helping build up American companies, which in turn because of their success have created tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who does research in labor markets. “Discouraging such people to apply for visas to enter the United States to work -- I can’t imagine how that can be considered to be in the American national interest.”
This really grinds my gears. Burtless cannot possibly be that naïve so he's deliberately using a strawman argument to attack this EO. This isn't about discouraging people from applying, it's about stopping abuses here in the USA. Burtless can get bent.
In recent years though, outsourcing companies have received the most H-1B visas, while other tech companies have struggled to get all they want. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the top five recipients were all outsourcing companies, led by Tata Consultancy.
Ron Hira, an associate professor at Howard University, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.
I've known this for more than twenty years. I've had my contracts ended early several times because of the dirty stunts tech companies pull with these outsourcing agencies. The article mentions that Congress is working on legislation but they've been "working on legislation" for decades now and not done a damned thing to fix this situation.
All other circus act EO's aside, I must admit that I fully and whole heartedly support President Trump on this. H-1B reform has been LONG overdue and Congress has failed their constituents.
Im sorry to hear your personal struggles, the sad fact is that big companies are more and more likely to outsource workers from abroad because they accept less pay and via agencies can be got in large groups. I think the culture needs to change, not just in the USA but in all developed nations to focus on educating and then employing their people first instead of outsourcing. Trump has sort of said this in his inauguration speech, so hopefully I guess he will act upon it. I think one thing everyone can agree on about Trump is he is decisive and quick to act. Unlike politicians he gets his word on paper and in action in days, were as anyone else would take months if not years.
I wonder when he will fully announce his wall building project officially? The funny thing is a recent poll (can't find source atm) suggested most Americans surveyed didn't mind stopping illegal immigrants but were opposed to him barring refugee migrants. Go figure that one
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
So wait, the Democrats are Neo-marxists?
How did you get to that conclusion?
I asked already, but I fear we'll never know.
Sentinel1 wrote: All the countries involved with his E.O are yes Muslim, but each country is a complete and utter mess of political extremist opposites and government coups. The problem is you let one family in, they need a home, social security, language lessons, education lessons, school places etc and then said family want their 50 other relatives to join them in the same area. That makes a huge logistical nightmare through paper work and public funding.
That's very ignorant. Not ignorant as in “You are a filthy racist and you should feel bad about yourself”, no, I really mean that this is very ill-informed and far from the facts. Iran (it's the country I know best, I can't answer for others) has a pretty stable (unfriendly and unlikable as it is) regime, opposition that is mostly very moderate and friendly to the US, as a fairly good education system, and Iranian in the US (mostly concentrated around Los Angeles) are described as follow by Wikipedia:
Iranian Americans are among the highest educated people in the United States. They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities.
Quite recently, an Iranian-born woman working at Standford University, Maryam Mirzakhani, won the Fields medal (i.e. basically the Nobel Price in Mathematics). Now I guess she may have to move away from the US, but I'm sure she won't have too much trouble to get a position in the EU. It's all good for Europe really if the US decide to make such stupid, knee-jerk decision to satisfy the bigotry of it's uneducated masses. I'm still sad about this because being basically forced out of a country must be a quite traumatic experience, but I'll really reveal in schadenfreude when Trump's elector will see the new Apple, Google and co come out of Europe rather than the US.
As much as I hate the IRI, banning Iranians from entering the US was the dumbest move ever. If anything, it actually strengthen the regime, as Iranian Americans won't be able to visit their families in Iran anymore and bring outer news and ideas. And really, look up for the number of Iranian terrorists in the US to see how many terror attack this will prevent, but it's basically none at all.
This message will likely get me a new temporary ban but it was 100% worth it . This kind of information needs to be spread as far and wide as possible imo. Though some people will NEVER accept it, on purely ideological grounds.
Nuke 'em*. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
*Use the"nuclear option" not you know drop fusion bombs on them.
That's very ignorant. Not ignorant as in “You are a filthy racist and you should feel bad about yourself”, no, I really mean that this is very ill-informed and far from the facts. Iran (it's the country I know best, I can't answer for others) has a pretty stable (unfriendly and unlikable as it is) regime, opposition that is mostly very moderate and friendly to the US, as a fairly good education system, and Iranian in the US (mostly concentrated around Los Angeles) are described as follow by Wikipedia:
This. If anything we should be unveiling a Cold War esque "you get here you stay here in Freedomland" policy for Iranians.
Frazzled rant on: The EO is the EO someone who lives by soundbites and Townhall would do. Its bereft of detailed thinking.
Frazzled wrote: Nuke 'em. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
I guess I'm just enamored with the idea if the Senate having the 60 vote requirements is it forces more deliberation. The problem, is when both sides refuses to shift... so, we end up in gridlock (which I'd argue isn't the worst thing in the world )
They can't hold or refuse to hold hearings and you know it. It doesn't make the rhetoric any less idiotic.
Frazzled wrote: Nuke 'em*. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US
I actually think this is a bad thing. The Republicans and Democrats in past Congresses have made effective use of the filibuster to protect minority interests and bring people to the negotiation table. Getting rid of the filibuster altogether would make it pointless for the minority party to even show up and I think that's bad government.
Just Tony wrote: Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
That's a total fallacy. Before “they were safe”, they had no opinions, just like the reactionaries had no opinions either, because they were goddamn fetuses.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?
Starbucks wants to hire 10,000 immigrants? And yet, just today I've read news that Starbucks is laying off 6000 people.
Guess they figured they can pay migrants lower wages.
just one piece of Bannon’s ideological game of chess, rewiring the media landscape to clear the path for a radical reimagining of conservative politics in line with his own nationalist agenda. The president himself, Bannon has admitted in the past, is just one piece of the puzzle. Trump is a “blunt instrument for us,” Bannon told Ken Stern for Vanity Fair last summer. “I don’t know whether he really gets it or not.”
Just Tony wrote: Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
That's a total fallacy. Before “they were safe”, they had no opinions, just like the reactionaries had no opinions either, because they were goddamn fetuses.
Just Tony wrote: Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
That's a total fallacy. Before “they were safe”, they had no opinions, just like the reactionaries had no opinions either, because they were goddamn fetuses.
You misunderstand: I responded to ridiculous hyperbole with ridiculous hyperbole. I realize not every pro choice woman gets an abortion, just as I sincerely hope the poster I was responding to realizes that Republicans aren't some sort of immoral slaughter cult, which is how it came off.
They can't hold or refuse to hold hearings and you know it. It doesn't make the rhetoric any less idiotic.
Frazzled wrote: Nuke 'em*. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US
I actually think this is a bad thing. The Republicans and Democrats in past Congresses have made effective use of the filibuster to protect minority interests and bring people to the negotiation table. Getting rid of the filibuster altogether would make it pointless for the minority party to even show up and I think that's bad government.
I agree. The problem is that accelerating use of the filibuster over the past few decades has given rise to a situation in which a "tyranny of the minority" can arise.
What's to be done? Ultimately we have to hope that our elected representatives have the sense to maintain good governance procedures above individual and party issues.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
"When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation."
Again, this is not Obama deciding to target a teenager.
whembly wrote: Strange... I remember not having the 9th seat filled as some sort of Constitutional Crisis™.
Gee... what changed that paradigm?
Nothing changed, it's simply a refusal to reward the republicans for breaking the system. If Trump is not permitted to nominate anyone there's a chance that, in the future, the republican party will not attempt to break the system because there is no reward for doing so. If Trump gets to successfully put his guy on the court then the obstructionism has been rewarded, and you can guarantee that it's going to happen again in the future.
Nothing changed, it's simply a refusal to reward the republicans for breaking the system. If Trump is not permitted to nominate anyone there's a chance that, in the future, the republican party will not attempt to break the system because there is no reward for doing so. If Trump gets to successfully put his guy on the court then the obstructionism has been rewarded, and you can guarantee that it's going to happen again in the future.
Thats cute. It means that no candidate will be run through the system unless the President controls the Senate, and if they do then that candidate will be run through automatically. Awesome sauce.
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. It means that no candidate will be run through the system unless the President controls the Senate, and if they do then that candidate will be run through automatically. Awesome sauce.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. The republican party can end the standoff at any time by confirming Obama's nomination as they should have done, and then refusing to use obstructionist tactics in the future. But as long as the republican party has an openly-stated policy of "only republican presidents are permitted to nominate justices" I don't see any reason to reward them for it and encourage them to keep doing it in the future.
It's ultimately irrelevant what the Democrats do now. Of course it's stupid, and if the Republicans had any integrity they wouldn't have pulled this gak to begin with cause here we are, at the obvious end point of obstruction for obstruction's sake. A demand that the Democrats be the "big boys" and play "fair" while the Republicans don't give a gak is childish and playing a game of gotcha with no consideration for who started this mess downhill is asinine.
At what point do we realize we're just pawns in a game we're not even playing?
A common man can't even muster enough support to be elected to a signifigant office. There may as well be a sign on the way in to DC that says 'You must be this rich to participate'.
I can't honestly remember the last time something was decided for the people and not the ruling class. The Dakota and Keystone being pushed through is a great example of this. Both these projects only reward those at the top while they toss out a handful of scraps thinking their doing us a favor, while folks whom the pipeline runs past wait for the inevitable leak.
Ultimately, we sit here and go back and forth on what would be good or bad for the country when the reality that is our world is decided on what will line someones pocket.
I can write my congress man everyday for the rest of my life and I doubt he'd ever read a singal letter. But, here I am, everyday, reading these arguements. I'm begining to think politics is like the weather. You can't change it but it sure is nice to complain.
whembly wrote: Strange... I remember not having the 9th seat filled as some sort of Constitutional Crisis™.
Gee... what changed that paradigm?
Nothing changed, it's simply a refusal to reward the republicans for breaking the system. If Trump is not permitted to nominate anyone there's a chance that, in the future, the republican party will not attempt to break the system because there is no reward for doing so. If Trump gets to successfully put his guy on the court then the obstructionism has been rewarded, and you can guarantee that it's going to happen again in the future.
Harry Reid broke the system. Putting the blame squarely on GOP's lap is foolish.
He set the precedent in nuking the filibuster, for a short-term gain.
There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
I guess I'm just enamored with the idea if the Senate having the 60 vote requirements is it forces more deliberation.
IOW: "I don't think the constitution is good enough as-is, I want to change the rules".
Meaning... what?
The Constitution gave the senate HUGE leeway as to how it should operate their chambers... this club makes their own rules.
Reid created a precedent... a precedent that'll likely turn this Senate a rubber-stamp for Trumpesto's Administration when the simple-majority be able to pass anything it wants.
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. It means that no candidate will be run through the system unless the President controls the Senate, and if they do then that candidate will be run through automatically. Awesome sauce.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. The republican party can end the standoff at any time by confirming Obama's nomination as they should have done, and then refusing to use obstructionist tactics in the future. But as long as the republican party has an openly-stated policy of "only republican presidents are permitted to nominate justices" I don't see any reason to reward them for it and encourage them to keep doing it in the future.
Yea...no. Presidents of different parties don't renominate the previous administration's candidate.
As noted, nuke'em. This restores the balance that a President should have the default approval of their candidates.
Frazzled wrote: Yea...no. Presidents of different parties don't renominate the previous administration's candidate.
Congresses of different parties don't obstruct the previous administration's picks with a blanket "you are not permitted to nominate anyone". The question is not what is standard practice, it's what the republican party needs to do to distance itself from breaking the system with blatant obstructionism. Confirming the previous administration's candidate is a rejection of the gains from obstructionism, removing the incentive to use similar tactics in the future.
As noted, nuke'em. This restores the balance that a President should have the default approval of their candidates.
Conveniently only after the republican party has benefited from obstructionism.
Frazzled wrote: Yea...no. Presidents of different parties don't renominate the previous administration's candidate.
Congresses of different parties don't obstruct the previous administration's picks with a blanket "you are not permitted to nominate anyone". .
They do now. I think we are in agreement that this inappropriate. I also think this helps restore balance as a simple majority can again affect the nomination approval.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
"When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation."
Again, this is not Obama deciding to target a teenager.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?
Its not bad. No noncitizen has a right to enter the USA, or any nation they are not a citizen of. Thats pretty freaking basic.
Considering many European countries have puched back similarly, the hypocrisy is impressive. How about all those refugees sitting in near the chunnel? Thats ok but America bad.
Thanks for clarifying, because prior.... it looked pretty bad. Now, it is just garden variety Nationalism.
Plus, as Americans we should be aspiring to be better than Europeans. That should appeal to you Fraz!
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
"When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation."
Again, this is not Obama deciding to target a teenager.
Yes, but that is not the same as targetting teenagers for assassination with drone strikes.
You seem to be making the claim that Obama deliberately sought out teenagers to pick off with specifically targetted missiles.
What he did was to authorise strikes that had a chance of involving "collateral damage" by injuring the people around the designated target, who was a genuine terrorist. Given that these people are living in close proximity to civilians, this is a risk that will always be present. The whole film of Eye In The Sky was based on this moral dilemma.
We see the same thing in cases of commando raids, from the Black Hawk Down event through the successful attack on Bin Laden in Pakistan, to the latest Trump authorised raid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: At what point do we realize we're just pawns in a game we're not even playing?
A common man can't even muster enough support to be elected to a signifigant office. There may as well be a sign on the way in to DC that says 'You must be this rich to participate'.
I can't honestly remember the last time something was decided for the people and not the ruling class. ... ....
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?
Its not bad. No noncitizen has a right to enter the USA, or any nation they are not a citizen of. Thats pretty freaking basic.
Considering many European countries have puched back similarly, the hypocrisy is impressive. How about all those refugees sitting in near the chunnel? Thats ok but America bad.
Thanks for clarifying, because prior.... it looked pretty bad. Now, it is just garden variety Nationalism.
Plus, as Americans we should be aspiring to be better than Europeans. That should appeal to you Fraz!
The "refugees" sitting near the Chunnel should by international law have presented themselves for asylum at the first friendly country they entered, usually somewhere like Turkey or Italy if they came from the Middle East or North Africa. They didn't because actually they want to get into the UK. If they were vetted through the usual process, they might not be assigned to get asylum in the UK. They haven't been vetted because they prefer to try and get into the UK illegally rather than take the chance of going through the vetting process..
The Trump initiative simply bans anyone carrying a passport from various Muslim nations in which he doesn't have any business interests, from travelling to the USA even if they already have a Green Card.
This is a pretty clear difference between the two situations.
Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
That AG should be fired.
Congress need to move forward with Sessions appointment stat.
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
That AG should be fired.
Congress need to move forward with Sessions appointment stat.
The reason apparently that the acting AG hasn't been fired?
Nobody else can sign all those foreign surveillance warrants until a replacement is confirmed.
1984 ran us over with a truck.
While I support the position the acting AG is coming from, I find myself uncomfortable with the act itself, someone in that position doing whatever they want just because they disagree with the new administration for the short time they're in there sets an awful bad precedent (not that this whole charade hasn't been doing that since minute 1 though...)
It does however highlight just how poorly the Trump administration is able to manage the trappings of state. I cannot imagine this having happened under a Dubya or McCain or a Romney.
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
I mean, in much the same way an exploding plane can be a visually stunning spectacle sure, but I don't want to be on the plane
While I support the position the acting AG is coming from, I find myself uncomfortable with the act itself, someone in that position doing whatever they want just because they disagree with the new administration for the short time they're in there sets an awful bad precedent (not that this whole charade hasn't been doing that since minute 1 though...)
If she resigns then the entire system comes tumbling down, however if the Nurnberg Trials taught us anything its that following orders is not a defence. She knows that she's out the door and in knowing that she is taking a stand against, or at least not defending an EO that she feels is unconstitutional and very probably illegal.
She's walking a very fine line trying not to betray her job or her ethics/morals.
I was thinking about this in general the other day (not necessarily directly relating to America but in general).
And I came to the conclusion that polite, yet firm dissent from someone taking what they view as unjust, unethical or illegal instructions from seniors in an organisation (either public or private) is far better for the world as a whole rather than just simply resigning.
Resigning is better personally, you'd get benefits, recommendation letters, maybe a golden parachute. However, ultimately, all it means is, although your life is easier and your conscience is clear, resigning just means that when they hire, as part of standard business practices, they'll just get someone in who will play ball.
Is it? As I understand it, if she goes then the Attorney Generals office stops working. What outcry would result on someone walking out on the new President in his first week.
whembly wrote: The ethical thing to do is to resign in protest. That's make a statement.
As for FISA warrants... tough gak. Wait till Sessions is confirmed.
You mean like James Comey, acting as AG when Ashcroft was in the hospital, refused to sign off on the NSA wiretapping? Or Ashcroft himself refusing to sign of on it? Oh wait, they didn't resign over it. They made a stink about its questionable constitutional legality. It's irrelevant anyway, Trump already fired her and found someone with less scruples to fill the role.
All of this will be water under the bridge tomorrow anyway when the live broadcast of The Apprentice: Supreme Court airs tomorrow night.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"I am not convinced" is not an appropriate basis for the acting AG to decide not to defend the law.
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"I am not convinced" is not an appropriate basis for the acting AG to decide not to defend the law.
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason.
Weird, you were not that upset when Congress refused to do their jobs in regards to the vacant supreme court seat.
I think she is just setting a precedent for future AGs.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"I am not convinced" is not an appropriate basis for the acting AG to decide not to defend the law.
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason.
Weird, you were not that upset when Congress refused to do their jobs in regards to the vacant supreme court seat.
I think she is just setting a precedent for future AGs.
It's fething clear that the Senate makes the rules on how to conduct it's Advise and Consent... you may not like it, they're fully within their rights to NOT take up Obama's SCoTUS pick.
This AG doesn't have that same sort of agency to not enforce laws that the WH demands. The right way, is to loudly and clear resign over such order.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates—who was Barack Obama’s Deputy Attorney General and has been running DOJ until Jeff Sessions is confirmed—today sent a letter to top Justice Department officials announcing that she will “will not present arguments in defense of” President Trump’s controversial Immigration Executive Order “unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.” In response, President Trump just fired her.
I have not yet examined the EO with sufficient care to determine for myself its legality. The EO was obviously issued in haste, without the usual procedural or substantive review within the Executive branch, and without thinking through its consequences. At a minimum, and entirely independent of its legality, the issuance of the EO was deeply imprudent. I know that many people who find the Trump EO abhorrent are cheering wildly for Yates. Nonetheless, the reasons that Yates gave in her carefully worded letter for not defending the EO in court are extraordinarily weak, in my opinion.
If you are finding Lawfare useful in these times, please consider making a contribution to support what we do.
PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
The Constitution vests the “executive Power” in the President, and states that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These are the main constitutional provisions from which the president’s authority over legal interpretation and legal superintendence of the Executive branch flow.
The Attorney General serves as the “head of the Department of Justice.” The Attorney General’s core responsibilities include supervising DOJ, providing legal advice to the rest of the Executive Branch, and “[r]epresent[ing] the United States in legal matters generally.” When the Attorney General’s office is vacant, as it currently is, “the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office.” For all relevant purposes, Yates is the Attorney General.
The Attorney General (and here that means the Acting Attorney General) has the clear authority to determine which presidential orders the Department will defend in court, and how, although her determinations are subject to presidential reversal. So unless and until Trump orders Yates to defend the EO or fires her for insubordination, this is Yates’ call to make. Yates is right, in other words, that “[a]s the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.” Yates is also right that in deciding whether and how to defend presidential action in court, her role is different from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which (as she correctly says) reviews EOs only for the narrow issue of whether the EO “is lawful on its face and properly drafted.”
So far so good. But the reasons that Yates then gives for deciding not to defend the EO in court are labored and, to me, unconvincing. Most importantly, Yates does not say that she has concluded that the EO is unlawful. Nor does she say that defending the EO in court would be unreasonable. Rather, she says:
[OLC’s] review does not take account of statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Yes, in deciding whether and how to defend an EO in Court, the Attorney General’s responsibilities go beyond OLC’s “form and legality” review. Things get trickier when she says that her responsibilities are broader than the Civil Division's responsibility to “advanc[e] reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order.” Yates definitely gets the final call on whether the arguments in support of the EO are reasonable. But note that she does not here suggest that the arguments in support of the EO are unreasonable.
Instead, Yates gives four reasons for refusing to defend the EO. Here they are, with my quick reactions.
First, Yates says that OLC did not take into account “statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.” I assume Yates is referring here to statements such as the one by Rudy Giuliani, who recently claimed that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and sought “the right way to do it legally. I am sure OLC didn’t take such statements into account, since they would not be relevant to review for form and legality. I can imagine these and similar statements properly informing the Attorney General’s view of the legality of the EO, if she believed that these statements amounted to the EO being motivated by invidious discrimination (though even if she concluded that, the relevance of such discrimination in the context of the immigration issues here is tricky). But Yates does not say she has concluded that, and it is pretty clear from the context of her letter (see below) that she has not ruled out that there are reasonable arguments in support of the EO.
Second, she says that OLC did not “address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.” True, that is not OLC’s job. But nor is it the Attorney General’s—at least not if the President has decided that the policy choice is wise and just. The Attorney General can personally advise the President about an EO’s wisdom and justness. And the Attorney General can decide to resign if she thinks the President is pursuing a policy so unwise and unjust as to be morally indefensible. But an Attorney General does not typically (I cannot think of a counterexample offhand) refuse to defend an Executive Order in court because she disagrees with the policy basis for the EO.
Third, Yates says her “responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.” This is not the standard that the Attorney General and DOJ typically use in deciding whether to defend presidential action in court. (Some have suggested that this is the standard that OLC should use in deciding whether presidential action outside of judicial review is lawful, though that position is contested.) Rather, the longstanding DOJ view is that DOJ will defend a presidential action in court if there are reasonable arguments in its favor, regardless of whether DOJ has concluded that the arguments are persuasive, which is an issue ultimately for courts to decide. DOJ very often—typically—defends presidential action in court if there is a reasonable legal basis for the action, even if it is not supported by the “best view” of the law. Indeed, that happened a lot in the Obama administration, as it does in all administrations.
Fourth, Yates says she is responsible “for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.” This sounds like a restatement of the policy choice point above. The Attorney General has discretion to make some DOJ decisions based on what she thinks is just and right. But in the context of deciding whether to defend a presidential EO, the question for Yates is reasonable legality, not what is just and right. If Yates thought the EO, independent of its legality, had crossed a red line of justice and rightness—whatever those terms mean—she should have counseled the President on that point and resigned if he disagreed.
Yates states at the end of her letter that she is “not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.” This statement summarizes the two major points above. First, she believes the standard for defending the EO is “best view of the law,” not reasonable legality, and she is not convinced the EO is consistent with the best view of the law. But as noted above, the typical standard for the Attorney General to defend an EO of the President is not whether she is convinced of its legality. Rather, the standard is something closer to the idea that she should defend the EO unless she is convinced of its illegality--i.e. she defends if there is a reasonable argument for its legality. Second, Yates believes that defending the EO is inconsistent with her responsibilities to interject a policy analysis analysis about the wisdom and justness of the EO independent of the President. For reasons stated above, I do not believe that either of these arguments are persuasive given her role. Nor are they consistent with what I understand the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General to be.
Yates is obviously in an extraordinarily difficult position as Acting Attorney General for a President whose policy goals she does not share. She is clearly repulsed by the EO, and wants no part in its enforcement. (One of the many elements of poor governance by the Trump administration was to issue the controversial and poorly thought-through EO when Barack Obama’s Deputy Attorney General is serving as Acting Attorney General.) But if Yates feels this way, she should have resigned (though if Yates goes, there may be no statutory officer in DOJ who can approve FISA orders.) Instead, she wrote a letter that appears to depart sharply from the usual criteria that an Attorney General would apply in deciding whether to defend an EO in court. As such, the letter seems like an act of insubordination that invites the President to fire her. Which he did.
whembly wrote: It's fething clear that the Senate makes the rules on how to conduct it's Advise and Consent... you may not like it, they're fully within their rights to NOT take up Obama's SCoTUS pick.
Declaring "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" may technically be legal, but you know perfectly well that it's against the intent of the system.
This AG doesn't have that same sort of agency to not enforce laws that the WH demands.
Apparently they do, because they just did.
The right way, is to loudly and clear resign over such order.
No, the right way is to obstruct an immoral act and also draw attention to it.
Sure... it'd argue it'll lose, as this isn't the first time this law was taken to court.
whembly wrote: It's fething clear that the Senate makes the rules on how to conduct it's Advise and Consent... you may not like it, they're fully within their rights to NOT take up Obama's SCoTUS pick.
Declaring "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" may technically be legal, but you know perfectly well that it's against the intent of the system.
A) "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" is flat-out a lie. They said the next President. B) It's up to Senate to operate their "Advise & Consent" as they see fit. JUST like Harry Reid saw fit to Nuke the filibuster.....
This AG doesn't have that same sort of agency to not enforce laws that the WH demands.
Apparently they do, because they just did.
Actually, they don't when it's a legal order. Hence... she was fired. That's not agency there boyo.
The right way, is to loudly and clear resign over such order.
No, the right way is to obstruct an immoral act and also draw attention to it.
No. The right way is to explain to the WH why it's illegal. Barring that, resign in protest. Otherwise, you lose your job.
Stop with the immoral act outrage...
What's immoral about it? You didn't have a conniption fit when Obama did it in 2011...
Sure... it'd argue it'll lose, as this isn't the first time this law was taken to court.
Oh BS whembly you know they were un-ironically praying for a R to be elected so they can elect some right wing nutjob who things abortion is equal with murder
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
All of those words are factually accurate, but they don't magically make the girl any less dead, nor the reasoning behind them any less repugnant.
whembly wrote: A) "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" is flat-out a lie. They said the next President.
And if you believe that they would have dropped their obstructionism if Clinton had won then I have a bridge to sell you.
B) It's up to Senate to operate their "Advise & Consent" as they see fit.
And, again, whatever the technicality of the law may be it should be pretty obvious that "refuse to accept any nomination, period" is not what was intended.
Actually, the don't when it's a legal order. Hence... she was fired. That's not agency there boyo.
She still did it, even if she was fired later. Her successor will now have to choose what to do about it.
What's immoral about it? You didn't have a conniption fit when Obama did it in 2011...
First of all, could you cite my opinions on Obama's actions in 2011? I would be very interested to know how you're so confident that you know what I thought about it, given the fact that I wasn't a member on dakka until 2012.
Second, it's immoral because it's blatant racism and pandering to awful people. This goes beyond even Obama's actions by banning people who have already been vetted, people who are not a plausible threat. And it's a worrying separation of church and state issue when Trump says that Christians will not be subject to the same restrictions.
Peregrine wrote: And it's a worrying separation of church and state issue when Trump says that Christians will not be subject to the same restrictions.
First of all, could you cite my opinions on Obama's actions in 2011? I would be very interested to know how you're so confident that you know what I thought about it, given the fact that I wasn't a member on dakka until 2012.
Touche.
I'd be willing to bet good money that the 2011 "you" wouldn't have an issue with it as it's "your" guy in the WH.
Second, it's immoral because it's blatant racism and pandering to awful people. This goes beyond even Obama's actions by banning people who have already been vetted, people who are not a plausible threat. And it's a worrying separation of church and state issue when Trump says that Christians will not be subject to the same restrictions.
You mean bigotry... not racism.
Funny... the other 50 majority muslim nations are not impacted by this EO.
This EO targets the 7 nations that are hotbeds of sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism). Therefore, it's more of a geographical targetted temporary ban... rather than a "dur, dur, let no muzzie in" order.
Furthmore, as a refugee, green card holder or even temporary visa, we ask for the applicant's religion all.the.time.
As for priority to Christians? Are you talking about Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” ????
Seems to me that once admissions resume, members of minority religions may well go to the front of the line... that certainly means Christians and Yazidis... but, it can also mean shia muslims in Iraq fleeing isis or sunni muslims in Syria (I may have that backwards... but, you get the drift. )
whembly wrote: I'd be willing to bet good money that the 2011 "you" wouldn't have an issue with it as it's "your" guy in the WH.
Then you should stop betting, because you're just going to throw away your money. Obama isn't "my guy" and I've been critical of plenty of the things he has done.
You mean bigotry... not racism.
No, I mean what I said.
This EO targets the 7 nations that are hotbeds of sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism). Therefore, it's more of a geographical targetted temporary ban... rather than a "dur, dur, let no muzzie in" order.
A targeted ban which happens to miss Saudi Arabia, home of plenty of extremist Islamic ideology and the country of origin for most of the 9/11 terrorists. Is their omission from the list because the US needs them for selfish reasons in the middle east, or because Trump's personal business interests in Saudi Arabia are more important than the supposed security issue?
Furthmore, as a refugee, green card holder or even temporary visa, we ask for the applicant's religion all.the.time.
We shouldn't be doing that.
As for priority to Christians? Are you talking about Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” ????
Yes. And regardless of your attempt to spin it into something other than "Christians get priority" it completely destroys the idea that this ban is necessary for security reasons. If people can get preferential treatment by being a member of a religious minority then all that does is tell terrorist groups "pretend to be Christians and you can jump straight to the front of the line". The fact that this obvious flaw is being overlooked rather strongly suggests that the issue here is racism, not legitimate security concerns.
Erm... okay... for sake of the conversation, let's go with it.
This EO targets the 7 nations that are hotbeds of sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism). Therefore, it's more of a geographical targetted temporary ban... rather than a "dur, dur, let no muzzie in" order.
A targeted ban which happens to miss Saudi Arabia, home of plenty of extremist Islamic ideology and the country of origin for most of the 9/11 terrorists. Is their omission from the list because the US needs them for selfish reasons in the middle east, or because Trump's personal business interests in Saudi Arabia are more important than the supposed security issue?
He can't target Saudia Arabia w/o Congressional input via legal statute. It was an Obama-era statute that identified those 7 nations... not Trumpesto.
Furthmore, as a refugee, green card holder or even temporary visa, we ask for the applicant's religion all.the.time.
We shouldn't be doing that.
We've been doing that forever dude.
As for priority to Christians? Are you talking about Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” ????
Yes. And regardless of your attempt to spin it into something other than "Christians get priority" it completely destroys the idea that this ban is necessary for security reasons. If people can get preferential treatment by being a member of a religious minority then all that does is tell terrorist groups "pretend to be Christians and you can jump straight to the front of the line". The fact that this obvious flaw is being overlooked rather strongly suggests that the issue here is racism, not legitimate security concerns.
Not really... the vetting process is extremely thorough and it's not done with a 15 minute converstations. It takes days/weeks/months to go through this process.
Also... do you support Obama's decision to end the wet foot, dry foot policy?
whembly wrote: He can't target Saudia Arabia w/o Congressional input via legal statute. It was an Obama-era statute that identified those 7 nations... not Trumpesto.
Wait, what happened to this idea that the president has the power to stop immigration from anywhere they want? In your own words:
"The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason."
If the president can block anyone they want for damn near any reason then why do they need congressional approval to say "nobody comes in from Saudi Arabia until we have a new policy finished"?
We've been doing that forever dude.
That doesn't make it right. Religion should have nothing to do with immigration or border entry status. The US is a secular nation.
Not really... the vetting process is extremely thorough and it's not done with a 15 minute converstations. It takes days/weeks/months to go through this process.
Wait, I thought the reason we need all these restrictions on incoming refugees is the supposed difficulty in obtaining information on these people? What are you going to do, demand paperwork from a church saying "this person is a Christian"? Or do you simply think that all Islamic terrorists are too incompetent to successfully pretend to be Christians for more than 15 minutes?
Also... do you support Obama's decision to end the wet foot, dry foot policy?
It's a pivot move to refocus things away from Trump.
Taking demographic information on religion is standard stuff. Government needs that info to help identify religious discrimination. However it relies on the basis that people don't usually have a motive to lie about their religion.
tneva82 wrote: As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
Yeah, definitely agree that it isn't a foregone conclusion. You'll notice the chance I gave was 10%, because a lot of things have to fall in to place to make people realise how dreadful Trump is within such a short time frame.
So is this another one of the cons? Make outrage by banning Muslims so they could slip Bannon in to the Security Council, which scares me a hell of a lot more than anyone escaping the Middle East?
.)
Cry havoc and let slip the deplorables.
answer! 
