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.

 Compel wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
[
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.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------> .

Naw, I got the satire. I just find it in rather poor taste when anyone, specifically a mod, starts abusing a false victimhood status, even in jest.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Didn't realise Obama had made executive orders of such a clearly fascist bent?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I am chopped up for food being rather fat and chunky, .

You know what the word for man is on certain Polynesian Islands? "Long pig."

People bacon. Its whats for breakfast!

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Indeed.

So, how close is Trump to being impeached then?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, how close is Trump to being impeached then?

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

...and a partial walkback:

@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.

Well, it did just jut shot down by the courts.

Honest question:

Did Obama ever pose with his EO's, holding them like a preschooler who is proud of his picture?

 d-usa wrote:
Honest question:

Did Obama ever pose with his EO's, holding them like a preschooler who is proud of his picture?

Nope.

I can't recall that ever...

It's sure has become a goldmine of memes... photoshopping the documents...

 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)?

I always got the sense that he viewed them as failures.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:


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

 d-usa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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?

Hillary and Trump.

In other news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-idUSKBN15E04S

Five people were killed after gunmen opened fire in a Quebec City mosque during evening prayers, the mosque's president told reporters on Sunday.

A witness told Reuters that up to three gunmen fired on about 40 people inside the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre.

More at the link




Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:

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.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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

A 'close the loopholes' tax to get the wealthy to actually pay theirs could cover it.

 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%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
...and a partial walkback:

@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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.