|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It really is appalling that someone who has said this on record:
"Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment."
gets to sit on the NSC rather than the director of national intelligence or the chairman of the joint chiefs. Damn it.
|
On January 30 2017 00:41 Doodsmack wrote: Lol is this guy still getting hacked?
Did Sean Spicer seriously and sincerely retweet The Onion ripping on him? He clearly didn't watch the satirical video...
|
Speaking of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs, do we have one? Or are we still in interim limbo there?
|
On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote: Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left.
|
On January 30 2017 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Did Sean Spicer seriously and sincerely retweet The Onion ripping on him? He clearly didn't watch the satirical video... The Onion: "Sean Spicer's job is to provide misinformation." Sean Spicer: "The Onion is correct!" Neither of you sees the joke here?
|
On January 30 2017 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote: Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left.
Is Europe considered "the left"? Or why ban European citizens (>100k Germans alone) and members of parliaments of the UK and Germany?
The US is so great they don't need any allies? CUZ CARRIERS AND NUKES? Okay.
|
On January 29 2017 16:59 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 16:35 xDaunt wrote: The countries chosen are either war zones or state sponsors of terrorism. There are a bunch of other Muslim states that were left off the list. I am curious to know what your take on the recent court ruling is. Like do you think its a legitimate challenge and could possibly lead to something more substantial or just a small victory that ultimately will have courts rule in favor of the EO? I haven't looked at immigration law since law school, but my recollection is that executive authority is almost plenary when it comes to border control issues, not withstanding due process issues for those affected. From Blisse's posts, it seems like there are some statutory considerations that may strengthen the Trump Administration's position. All that said, I don't really have a good feel for the legal lay of the land on this issue, so I don't have a good sense for how it will be resolved by the courts.
|
On January 30 2017 03:11 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote: Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left. Is Europe considered "the left"? Or why ban European citizens (>100k Germans alone) and members of parliaments of the UK and Germany? The US is so great they don't need any allies? CUZ CARRIERS AND NUKES? Okay. No, Europe isn't considered "the left" by the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration considers Europe to be "irrelevant" on issues of immigration.
|
On January 30 2017 01:41 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 01:35 mustaju wrote:On January 30 2017 01:09 NukeD wrote:On January 30 2017 01:04 TheTenthDoc wrote: Is it really even necessary to destabilize the Middle East at this point? The region's about as stable as one of those dogs that spontaneously passes out. Well we dont know what is the ultimate goal of destabilizng it so we dont know if further destabilizing is necessary. That Quatar-Saudi Arabia-Syria-Turkey pipeline seems as plausible goal but i dont know where to fit in the rest of the banned countries. I find that logic rather confusing. How would a construction project that is already a rather tempting target for terrorist attacks, benefit from the entire region being unstable? Especially considering that oil is already less and less relevant with the new forms of energy becoming more commonplace? I dont know, really, i have no idea why they would want to destabilize it. It is probably not the reason why but I am clueless as to what the other reason could be so I just posted that one. They destabilize the European periphery in an effort to stop the further federalization of the EU. The only political entity that could threaten US world hegemony is a United States of Europe that starts to develop it's own geopolitical agenda independent of the US. It's working nicely so far
|
Immigration power of the executive is analyzed under Youngstown Steel, which counsels that where the executive is acting within the explicit scope of its power, judicial deference to executive action is at its highest. Accordingly, immigration executive actions are difficult to challenge so long as they don't touch on any interest already granted a resident of the nation. However, once the government bestows a residency interest upon an individual, which happens most frequently through green card issuances, Due Process under the 5th Amendment kicks in, likely in the form of liberty protections.
Should the challenge get that far, Trump's lawyers would then likely have to be able to prove that the alienage of an individual already vetted and granted residency singularly justifies rescission of the residency interest granted. Looks like Trump won't go down that alley, though who can say at this point.
|
On January 30 2017 03:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Did Sean Spicer seriously and sincerely retweet The Onion ripping on him? He clearly didn't watch the satirical video... The Onion: "Sean Spicer's job is to provide misinformation." Sean Spicer: "The Onion is correct!" Neither of you sees the joke here?
? Either he didn't realize that The Onion is fake (which is 99% what happened) or he decided to play into the liar paradox of "What your father says is false/ What your mother says is true", neither of which make Spicer look intelligent. If he thinks he's being clever by posting satirical information about him being misinformed and agreeing with it, then he's either misinformed about spreading good information, or he's well-informed about spreading misinformation. Either way, he doesn't make a good point, not that it matters, really... It's only been a week and the American public already knows that he's full of crap and has no problem lying to us.
|
On January 30 2017 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote: Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left. Wait, so if I understand you correctly: they're not just implementing policies the left thinks is bad; they're intentionally implementing policies even they think are bad just to piss off the left. Why? What's the end goal to pissing off liberals? They usually get plenty pissed off on their own, don't they?
One of my frustrations with your arguments in this thread is that you're such a political operative about everything. You only contribute on subjects that you think will be favorable to you, and when you do everything seems so calculated, like you would never just say what you think because you think it.
This results in conversations like:
"Wtf is this new Trump policy? It's excluding a bunch of long-time legal American residents from coming back to the country, just because they picked a bad time to go on vacation, and it's pissing everybody off." "You just don't get it, this is all part of Trump's master plan." "To piss everybody off?" "Exactly." "...?"
Like really, you have no comment on the significant human cost of this policy, you just want to say something esoteric about Trump's master plan so you can say we're all playing into his hands by criticizing his shitty policies?
|
On January 30 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs, do we have one? Or are we still in interim limbo there?
As far as I know Trump still hasn't nominated someone for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, so Obama's appointment is serving or it might just be totally empty.
Trump's DNI nominee is Dan Coats. Pretty much just a career politician. Not one of the wackier of Trump's choices (apparently he got banned from Russia for opposing the Crimea annexation which is funny) but having someone on deck makes it pretty odd the position got dumped.
|
Since you're here xDaunt, can you articulate a defense of Trump's move to put Bannon on the NSC whilst removing the Chairman of the joint chiefs and DNI? Seems pretty indefensible. The first one where I can't imagine any Trump supporter liking it. Especially since they care so much about national security as well as "draining the seamp."
|
I looked myself.
DNI: Coats nominated, no hearing set, interim DNI: Mike Dempsey. Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff: Still Obama's nominee (Joseph Dunford)
|
On January 30 2017 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:10 oBlade wrote:On January 30 2017 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Did Sean Spicer seriously and sincerely retweet The Onion ripping on him? He clearly didn't watch the satirical video... The Onion: "Sean Spicer's job is to provide misinformation." Sean Spicer: "The Onion is correct!" Neither of you sees the joke here? ? Either he didn't realize that The Onion is fake (which is 99% what happened) or he decided to play into the liar paradox of "What your father says is false/ What your mother says is true", neither of which make Spicer look intelligent. If he thinks he's being clever by posting satirical information about him being misinformed and agreeing with it, then he's either misinformed about spreading good information, or he's well-informed about spreading misinformation. Either way, he doesn't make a good point, not that it matters, really... It's only been a week and the American public already knows that he's full of crap and has no problem lying to us. Or he has a sense of humour? Seems like the simplest assumption, regardless of how much of a prick he is
|
On January 30 2017 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:10 oBlade wrote:On January 30 2017 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Did Sean Spicer seriously and sincerely retweet The Onion ripping on him? He clearly didn't watch the satirical video... The Onion: "Sean Spicer's job is to provide misinformation." Sean Spicer: "The Onion is correct!" Neither of you sees the joke here? ? Either he didn't realize that The Onion is fake (which is 99% what happened) or he decided to play into the liar paradox of "What your father says is false/ What your mother says is true", neither of which make Spicer look intelligent. If he thinks he's being clever by posting satirical information about him being misinformed and agreeing with it, then he's either misinformed about spreading good information, or he's well-informed about spreading misinformation. If he by astronomical odds happened to be the one person left on the internet that doesn't know about ONN, why would he be seriously agreeing with their tweet skewering him?
|
Joint statement by Mccain and Graham :
Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.
It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.
Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.
Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.
|
On January 30 2017 03:36 On_Slaught wrote: Since you're here xDaunt, can you articulate a defense of Trump's move to put Bannon on the NSC whilst removing the Chairman of the joint chiefs and DNI? Seems pretty indefensible. The first one where I can't imagine any Trump supporter liking it. Especially since they care so much about national security as well as "draining the seamp." There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that this is a temporary arrangement until Trump gets his people in place. The alternative is that Trump is reorganizing the executive bureaucracy to facilitate a preferred type of governance. Regardless, I think that there's far too much significance being attributed to this change at this time.
|
Even if we're kicking out everyone from those countries with visas, there has got to be a better way of doing it than just suddenly telling them they can't come back with no recourse for any of their family, jobs, or assets in the US. It's devastating enough to suddenly tell them they can't live in the US anymore, but even if you feel the muslim ban is justified, do you also feel it's fair to take everything they own away from them as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|