Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been reading this thread for a bit, lurking on the forums too.

Not planning on being a regular contributor to this thread, but I'll give my 2 cents, for what its worth, and may even through in an extra cent for free.

There's a lot of false equivalencies going on here. Obama did not have divisive rhetoric concerning people against birth control and abortion issues/very conservative Christians. Nowhere was Obama like "we need a shutdown of Christians in this country" or that "Christianity hates us". Trump did. Trump said things almost word for word like that, except it was about Islam, not Christianity.

Intent matters. It's what separates a hate crime from a normal crime. It's what separates murder from manslaughter. It's what separates an accident from a deliberate act of malice. There's a reason that intent is examined in a court of law and it's to identify what someone is aiming for.

In this case it is crystal clear that Trump wanted a ban on Muslims, which is illegal. It is crystal clear that Trump wanted to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. I don't think that we can debate that. The courts are striking this ban down precisely of that reason. They are being preemptive on an action that has motivations of racial/religious bias behind it. You start early so that things don't get really out of hand and/or cause too much damage (same as with medicine). So while the exact wording of the law may not say "Muslims are banned" YET, they strike down now so that we don't get to that point.

My 2 cents.

Now for my free cent:

Trump hasn't ranted about this strike down on Twitter yet. That's surprising.

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
Trump hasn't ranted about this strike down on Twitter yet. That's surprising.

Oh wow? Already swore it's going to highest court if neccessary but nothing on twitter?

Did his staff already ban him from twitter?-)

tneva82 wrote:

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
Trump hasn't ranted about this strike down on Twitter yet. That's surprising.

Oh wow? Already swore it's going to highest court if neccessary but nothing on twitter?

Did his staff already ban him from twitter?-)

Yea he's had literally nothing on Twitter so far. He ranted about it in his rally, but no Tweeting. Maybe his fingers got tired, or it was bed-time for him.

Maybe he rage-broke his phone?

 whembly wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
It does sound like a rather forced argument from the judge actually. At least without actually reading verdict myself.

Anyone got a link to the actual verdict/decision (whatever the correct term is in this situation)

Right here:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000

Thnx.

After skimming through the order I do agree up to the point of how much value can be placed on previous statements by the administration responsible for the EO over the actual text of the document in question.
To me it feels like this is taking it too far; giving previous statements such high value compared to the text.

There seem to exist caselaw supporting the interpretation of the court though so without reading through those cases I'd not be prepared to say this order will be overturned.

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
It does sound like a rather forced argument from the judge actually. At least without actually reading verdict myself.

Anyone got a link to the actual verdict/decision (whatever the correct term is in this situation)

Right here:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000

Thnx.

After skimming through the order I do agree up to the point of how much value can be placed on previous statements by the administration responsible for the EO over the actual text of the document in question.
To me it feels like this is taking it too far; giving previous statements such high value compared to the text.

There seem to exist caselaw supporting the interpretation of the court though so without reading through those cases I'd not be prepared to say this order will be overturned.

Intent is incredibly important in constitutional law, with regards to discrimination and/or the establishment clause. It's why Kansas keeps getting their anti-evolution laws overturned, despite their content being completely secular and making no mention of religion.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
It does sound like a rather forced argument from the judge actually. At least without actually reading verdict myself.

Anyone got a link to the actual verdict/decision (whatever the correct term is in this situation)

Right here:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000

Thnx.

After skimming through the order I do agree up to the point of how much value can be placed on previous statements by the administration responsible for the EO over the actual text of the document in question.
To me it feels like this is taking it too far; giving previous statements such high value compared to the text.

There seem to exist caselaw supporting the interpretation of the court though so without reading through those cases I'd not be prepared to say this order will be overturned.

Intent is incredibly important in constitutional law, with regards to discrimination and/or the establishment clause. It's why Kansas keeps getting their anti-evolution laws overturned, despite their content being completely secular and making no mention of religion.

The residents of Kansas are entitled to the protections in the US constitution the foreign nationals residing in the 6 countries subject to the EO do not. The strongest argument in the decision against the EO is that it prevents the Hawaii state university system from hiring foreign nationals from the named countries as faculty or admitting foreign nationals from those countries as students. No US citizens or legal residents are harmed by the EO.

 skyth wrote:
So 11 year old tax returns showing that President Trump paid taxes once at 24% and people are comparing that to the bracket they are in(different animals) today.

If I had time I would look more into this, but I'm guessing he still be paying a lower tax rate than a middle class person.

(To start off with, a middle class person would be paying an extra 6.8% for Social Security tax that President Trump wouldn't be paying).

Correct, still a bit iffy. I didn't like how Maddow went "guns blazing" immediately. They should have held onto the tax returns and looked into it more if they wanted to keep pressing the issue about his income. Then again, I doubt it was her choice

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meanwhile, inside the mind of Donald Trump.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-snoop-dogg-go-prison-assassination-music-video-rapper-marco-rubio-a7630841.html


My head hurts from all this face-palming.

"Donald Trump has suggested Snoop Dogg should be arrested for pretending to shoot him in a music video."

I suggest Donald Trump should be arrested for pretending to be fit to be President.

Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

Prestor Jon wrote:
[ No US citizens or legal residents are harmed by the EO.

Does being laid off count as being harmed?

 Stevefamine wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So 11 year old tax returns showing that President Trump paid taxes once at 24% and people are comparing that to the bracket they are in(different animals) today.

If I had time I would look more into this, but I'm guessing he still be paying a lower tax rate than a middle class person.

(To start off with, a middle class person would be paying an extra 6.8% for Social Security tax that President Trump wouldn't be paying).

Correct, still a bit iffy. I didn't like how Maddow went "guns blazing" immediately. They should have held onto the tax returns and looked into it more if they wanted to keep pressing the issue about his income. Then again, I doubt it was her choice

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meanwhile, inside the mind of Donald Trump.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-snoop-dogg-go-prison-assassination-music-video-rapper-marco-rubio-a7630841.html


My head hurts from all this face-palming.

"Donald Trump has suggested Snoop Dogg should be arrested for pretending to shoot him in a music video."

I suggest Donald Trump should be arrested for pretending to be fit to be President.

Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

Was Lois Lerner near a computer terminal or did some other Obama employee commit a felony?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
[ No US citizens or legal residents are harmed by the EO.

Does being laid off count as being harmed?

The EO doesn't impact US citizens or employees. It would protect their job actually.

 skyth wrote:
Again, making it harder (especially if you don't have rich parents) to get a college education is a bad thing.

Correct. I just finished paying off college (at 25) but I was basically bill to bill with an apartment and no car in a city. Now I'm debt free at 26 and amazed I might have 1k~/mo "savings" - something that was alien to me before. I have no parental funding but it's affordable if you do a county school + uni and finish while working full time.

My stepbrother is looking at his law school + undergrad (like many of his classmates) are looking at the 350k range. He effectively is forced to jump out of the gate with a 80-100k+ salary to not drown immediately.

He should have not qualified for 350k in loans and 8 years in housing with a sub 3 GPA, nor should I at my 2.5. If I tried to work full time at 19 I should not be allowed to get a BMW, but if my credits good and I have some solid pay stubs I should be able to get a Honda Civic a few years older. Macok is correct here. I can understand if a student excels of has a major with a work program, but they shouldn't hand out federal loans like candy.

tneva82 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
[ No US citizens or legal residents are harmed by the EO.

Does being laid off count as being harmed?

If that were true than such a citizen or legal resident could petition the court to have standing to file for a TRO of the EO. Can you cite a specific instance of this EO forcing an employer to lay off a US citizen or legal resident?

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should not be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

The clown did not face any legal persecution after pulling his stunt. The organisation behind the event banned him from future events, as is their right as they decide what kind of tone they want to set for their event, just as Snoop and every musician should be free to do with their music. Last I checked Snoop Dogg was not paid by the government. If the people funding and producing his music don't like what he is doing then they are free to withdraw their support.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

I can't wait until you post the tweet that Obama did calling for jail-time for the clown.


#totalynevertrump

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

Naw... it's common for peeps to get "a visit" from the Secret Service for making threats to the POTUS.

Madonna got a visit.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should not be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

The clown did not face any legal persecution after pulling his stunt. The organisation behind the event banned him from future events, as is their right as they decide what kind of tone they want to set for their event, just as Snoop and every musician should be free to do with their music.

Phase two of whembly posting, the other phases include posting articles but not reading what they say (when they invariably disprove his point) and linking entire articles instead of spoiling them and messing up mobile users

So did the writing staff of House of Cards get a visit when they had a storyline about an attempted presidential assassination?

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should not be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

The clown did not face any legal persecution after pulling his stunt. The organisation behind the event banned him from future events, as is their right as they decide what kind of tone they want to set for their event, just as Snoop and every musician should be free to do with their music.

Phase two of whembly posting, the other phases include posting articles but not reading what they say (when they invariably disprove his point) and linking entire articles instead of spoiling them and messing up mobile users

Then instead of trolling him shut up and put him on Ignore no?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should not be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

The clown did not face any legal persecution after pulling his stunt. The organisation behind the event banned him from future events, as is their right as they decide what kind of tone they want to set for their event, just as Snoop and every musician should be free to do with their music.

Phase two of whembly posting, the other phases include posting articles but not reading what they say (when they invariably disprove his point) and linking entire articles instead of spoiling them and messing up mobile users

Then instead of trolling him shut up and put him on Ignore no?

And miss the hypocrisy of him not calling out republicans and trump for doing the same if not worse things, that he ranted and raved about for over a year, than HRC and democrats? Nah I think I am fine

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should not be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

The clown did not face any legal persecution after pulling his stunt. The organisation behind the event banned him from future events, as is their right as they decide what kind of tone they want to set for their event, just as Snoop and every musician should be free to do with their music.

Phase two of whembly posting, the other phases include posting articles but not reading what they say (when they invariably disprove his point) and linking entire articles instead of spoiling them and messing up mobile users

Then instead of trolling him shut up and put him on Ignore no?

And miss the hypocrisy of him not calling out republicans and trump for doing the same if not worse things, that he ranted and raved about for over a year, than HRC and democrats? Nah I think I am fine

And, yet you never failed to defend HRC and your democrats whenever you complain Republicans do the same thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


Strong location to comment. Snoop should be fined/spoken with by law enforcement.

For what purpose and/or reason?

Once you find out, I'm sure you'll gin up the same sort of outrage over a clown wearing an Obama mask.

Right?

So, instead of saying that there is no reason that someone should not be free to exercise their free speech rights, you decide to try and play some game of "Gotcha!"?

The clown did not face any legal persecution after pulling his stunt. The organisation behind the event banned him from future events, as is their right as they decide what kind of tone they want to set for their event, just as Snoop and every musician should be free to do with their music.

Phase two of whembly posting, the other phases include posting articles but not reading what they say (when they invariably disprove his point) and linking entire articles instead of spoiling them and messing up mobile users

Then instead of trolling him shut up and put him on Ignore no?

And miss the hypocrisy of him not calling out republicans and trump for doing the same if not worse things, that he ranted and raved about for over a year, than HRC and democrats? Nah I think I am fine

And, yet you never failed to defend HRC and your democrats whenever you complain Republicans do the same thing.

See the difference with me is I do call them out not that often but I do. And I did not have a year long running head start viciously digging into them and then stopping on a dime when it was not convenient for me to do so.

feth the Republican party.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

@Ustrello:

Whatever float your boat man.

I don't need your recognition when I criticised Trump (ie, for firing Preet Bhara) or GOP (ie, RyanCare).

But hey, at least HRC isn't president:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
feth the Republican party.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

...? What does it say?

<-work blocked at the moment.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
feth the Republican party.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

...? What does it say?

<-work blocked at the moment.

Some white-house spokesmen (so, this is more feth the Trump admin than the Republican party as a whole, but they do lead it now) is saiying that federal aid to get poor/starving kids that don't get fed at home food at school is getting cut because there is no evidence that the kids benefiting are doing better in school.

Essentially, it's them trying to BS cutting Head Start and Meals on Wheels.

Poor people don't need food. The rich need tax breaks!

Why can't they just eat cake?

 jmurph wrote:
Poor people don't need food. The rich need tax breaks!

Why can't they just eat cake?

Jonathan Swift has a modest proposalon how the poor can feed themselves.

Perhaps the modern Republican is unable to identify satire? They certainly cannot identify lies.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
feth the Republican party.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

...? What does it say?

<-work blocked at the moment.

Some white-house spokesmen (so, this is more feth the Trump admin than the Republican party as a whole, but they do lead it now) is saiying that federal aid to get poor/starving kids that don't get fed at home food at school is getting cut because there is no evidence that the kids benefiting are doing better in school.

Essentially, it's them trying to BS cutting Head Start and Meals on Wheels.

It is a very debatable to claim that Head Start or any Pre K program actually helps kids learn. Even Federal studies of Head Start have shown that any advantage gained by Head Start dissipates once kids are in elementary school. Head Start isn't much more than daycare. I'm not opposed to govt funded daycare to help working parents but Head Start isn't a vital education program by any stretch.

There are seven studies on Head Start in this article with various conclusions. I'm quoting the Federal studies as I'm assuming most people will accept those as being the least biased.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/how_much_difference_does_presc.html

The studies: "Head Start Impact Study: Final Report" and "Third Grade Follow-up to the Head Start Impact Study" (2012)

What it involved: In 1998, Congress mandated that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determine evaluate the effectiveness of Head Start across the country. The two reports were a result of that examination.

The findings: The studies are cited by "fade out" proponents. From the beginning of Head Start through third grade, the studies concluded access to Head Start improved children’s preschool outcomes but had little impact on children in kindergarten through third grade. Access to Head Start had an impact on children’s language and literacy development while they were in Head Start. But those early effects dissipated in elementary school.

What about the food? Because anyone who argues that being fed has no effect on how well you learn has no idea what they are talking about. It's basic biology.

The brain needs energy. We get energy from food.