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.
2016/02/22 14:54:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit.
I definitely don't think you need to be a registered Republican to be able to state, totally free of bias, that Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP if nominated.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/22 15:19:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit.
I definitely don't think you need to be a registered Republican to be able to state, totally free of bias, that Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP if nominated.
I agree with you there but the sad thing is... I think that this same sentence would remain true if you removed Donald Trump's name and replaced it with Cruz's name, or even Rubio's name... So many of the Republican candidates this go round are just fething horrible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 15:19:36
2016/02/22 16:01:06
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but things are heating up in the British EU referendum thread.
Representatives from various European countries are at each other's throats.
We may need American involvement in Europe, again, to sort this out
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/02/22 16:05:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit. Because Trump talking about building a wall obviously equals death camps. But it's cool because it's not like the whole second to last paragraph is all unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks or anything.
Aren't politics fun?
Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Sigvatr wrote: Read the first line, saw the Hitler comparison, stopped reading. Not worth it. If you go ahead and start a comment of yours with such a comparison, you pretty much declare yourself as devoid of any historical / political knowledge.
Thank you for letting us know that not only did you not read the entire article, you completely misunderstood the part you did read. I appreciate your honesty.
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit. Because Trump talking about building a wall obviously equals death camps. But it's cool because it's not like the whole second to last paragraph is all unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks or anything.
Aren't politics fun?
Here's something you might not realize, in quite a few states there are just voters. Not Republican voters or Democraic voters, but just voters. Eighteen states have open presidential primaries, including the one I live in. When I go to the polls next Tuesday, I'm free to pick anyone I would like because I'm not bound by a political party.
Ouze wrote: I definitely don't think you need to be a registered Republican to be able to state, totally free of bias, that Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP if nominated.
Exactly.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/22 16:13:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree with you there but the sad thing is... I think that this same sentence would remain true if you removed Donald Trump's name and replaced it with Cruz's name, or even Rubio's name... So many of the Republican candidates this go round are just fething horrible.
I would agree with Cruz. I would probably disagree with Rubio - I don't like Rubio, and I think he would lose in a general, but I don't think he's going to potentially cause lasting damage to the GOP brand the way that Cruz or most especially Trump will. He's just a bad candidate, like Romney was.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/22 16:19:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but things are heating up in the British EU referendum thread.
Representatives from various European countries are at each other's throats.
We may need American involvement in Europe, again, to sort this out
I looked... at least on the last page it looked more "war of the roses" than it did "Thirty Years' War".... The cavalry cannot ride in to save the day if it cannot properly discriminate it's target(s)
2016/02/22 17:22:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world. I doubt anyone would put a religious test on it, but restricting entry from nations or regions regarded as dangerous is certainly nothing new. Heck, Carter did it with Iran. Not saying any of this makes Trump more or less electable, but much of the outrage over Trump seems to be from those who would never vote GOP anyway, and he is clearly angling for the GOP nomination. I would expect that if he gets it, you will start hearing him talk about his more moderate stances (IE he is pro choice) that don't help him in a primary.
-James
2016/02/22 18:52:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree with you there but the sad thing is... I think that this same sentence would remain true if you removed Donald Trump's name and replaced it with Cruz's name, or even Rubio's name... So many of the Republican candidates this go round are just fething horrible.
I would agree with Cruz. I would probably disagree with Rubio - I don't like Rubio, and I think he would lose in a general, but I don't think he's going to potentially cause lasting damage to the GOP brand the way that Cruz or most especially Trump will. He's just a bad candidate, like Romney was.
I actually think Rubio would be a great candidate against Clinton/Sanders. The contrast man... couldn't be more stark.
Unfortunately... that nomination lane doesn't seem to be opening up.
Looks like it's Trump vs Cruz.
le sigh...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 18:52:57
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/22 18:56:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world. I doubt anyone would put a religious test on it, but restricting entry from nations or regions regarded as dangerous is certainly nothing new. Heck, Carter did it with Iran. Not saying any of this makes Trump more or less electable, but much of the outrage over Trump seems to be from those who would never vote GOP anyway, and he is clearly angling for the GOP nomination. I would expect that if he gets it, you will start hearing him talk about his more moderate stances (IE he is pro choice) that don't help him in a primary.
What other countries do doesn't matter. What matters is that we have the Constitution that clearly says that what he is suggesting isn't allowed. It's just playing on hate with stuff that is blatantly illegal to pander for votes that really shows his lack of character.
2016/02/22 19:29:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world. I doubt anyone would put a religious test on it, but restricting entry from nations or regions regarded as dangerous is certainly nothing new. Heck, Carter did it with Iran. Not saying any of this makes Trump more or less electable, but much of the outrage over Trump seems to be from those who would never vote GOP anyway, and he is clearly angling for the GOP nomination. I would expect that if he gets it, you will start hearing him talk about his more moderate stances (IE he is pro choice) that don't help him in a primary.
What other countries do doesn't matter. What matters is that we have the Constitution that clearly says that what he is suggesting isn't allowed. It's just playing on hate with stuff that is blatantly illegal to pander for votes that really shows his lack of character.
The Alien Enemies Act, currently Title 50 of the United States Code Sections 21-24, originally part of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and revised prior to WWI when it was codified in the Federal Register, does allow for it if there are hostilities with said group. And the Court has ruled, in Ludecke v. Watkins (1948) that detention past the end of hostilities was legal if no formal peace treaty was signed with said hostile power(s).
Under the Executive's emergency powers, the President can issue substantive proclamations to detain foreign nationals and U.S. Citizens who pose a significant security risk. Executive Orders/proclamations have to be authorized by Congress, which historically has rubber-stamped them for political or wartime reasons.
Both the Legislature and the Presidency has the Constitutional power, which is codified in Public Law under the ADA, to bar foreign nationals from entering the territorial jurisdictions of the United States. Discrimination and religion has nothing to do with it.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2016/02/22 19:30:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Funny, since Trump's claim is that he wants to ban all Muslims. Not people from certain nations, but rather, people of a certain religion.
Because we are supposedly still at "war" with international terrorist groups. Groups where, at least on the surface, political aims and religion are closely tied together.
The theory is that any practitioner of Islam from overseas is a potential radical, or are at higher risk at becoming radicalized for various reasons. People who support barring further immigration from predominately Islamic countries do so under the old maxim "better safe than sorry".
The problems with this line of thinking is:
1. It would still be easy to get into the country for terrorist groups. We have a mostly open border with Canada and the Mexican border is horribly unsecured.
2. It would bar those who desire to come here legitimately and legally, obeying our immigration laws.
3. It doesn't take into account the fact that we've had U.S. Citizens, both those who were born into families from Islamic cultures and converts, become radicalized. See: the San Bernardino Shooters, Major Nidal Hassan, and John Walker Lindh.
In other words, while the U.S. Government has the power to do so, any public proclamations from Donald Hairpiece is just a lot of hot air to drum up support among angry Americans, who are fed up with the status quo.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2016/02/22 20:40:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
2016/02/22 20:50:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but things are heating up in the British EU referendum thread.
Representatives from various European countries are at each other's throats.
We may need American involvement in Europe, again, to sort this out
Message received. Friendlies inbound.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/02/22 21:05:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/22 22:47:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The theory is that any practitioner of Islam from overseas is a potential radical, or are at higher risk at becoming radicalized for various reasons. People who support barring further immigration from predominately Islamic countries do so under the old maxim "better safe than sorry".
Which completely ignores the fact that we've already had a number of instances of radicalization, both of a secular variety, and the religious variety.... and that he's ignoring the fact that there have been a number of radicalized Christians among those (I know, I know... they aren't following the Bible, so they aren't really Christians... blah blah blah, it's a lame excuse)
2016/02/22 22:54:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
No, religion is not a 'protected class' when it comes to immigration, read the US code.
And Trump backtracked the US Citizen portion almost immediately after his staffer (not him) said it would apply to US citizens.
Again, bad? Probably. Unconstitutional? I very highly doubt it. No case law in the past 100+ years of immigration law, including SCOTUS decisions, seem to indicate it would be unconstitutional.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/23 00:23:29
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/02/23 00:24:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
We've banned people for beliefs before (communists for example).
Yes, unconstitutional, via separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
.
Has nothing to do with immigration law and the authority Congress and the Executive have regarding it. Not allowing Muslims (or anyone) into the US does not prevent them from practicing their religion. And even if it did, foreign citizens overseas don't get constitutional protections. Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
