|
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. |
On February 04 2017 08:37 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 08:36 Saryph wrote:
Couldn't dislike Trump more, but you can't do stuff like that Village. It feels like a giant troll that the entire article is "Why NOT to assassinate Trump" but the cover seems like a very tacit encouragement.
It's a cheap, provocative, sensionalist title. The article is empty. Probably a good ad for them as people spread the cover. We'd need to know a few Irish opinions on this magazine. I would not read too much into it.
|
On February 04 2017 09:19 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 08:37 Nevuk wrote:On February 04 2017 08:36 Saryph wrote:
Couldn't dislike Trump more, but you can't do stuff like that Village. It feels like a giant troll that the entire article is "Why NOT to assassinate Trump" but the cover seems like a very tacit encouragement. It's a cheap, provocative, sensionalist title. The article is empty. Probably a good ad for them as people spread the cover. We'd need to know a few Irish opinions on this magazine. I would not read too much into it.
I'm an Irish citizen but I've never been there. but apparently from what I can tell Irish people are mad mostly at Enda for not coming down harder on the refugee ban. don't know numbers or anything but the one Irish newsource I had had an opinion article accusing him of repeating Irelands appeasement from WWII.
but basically Enda's the head of state and he just wants to wait until St. Patrick's day to talk to Trump and hopefully try to still have some sort of productive relationship with the US government.
Is Trump really going to go off on a random Irish Magazine? It doesn't seem like a productive use of anybody's time. From the look of the title it seems to be pretty far left (although I suppose it's hard to tell just from a cover). Is it even that big in Ireland?
|
On February 04 2017 09:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 09:19 nojok wrote:On February 04 2017 08:37 Nevuk wrote:On February 04 2017 08:36 Saryph wrote:
Couldn't dislike Trump more, but you can't do stuff like that Village. It feels like a giant troll that the entire article is "Why NOT to assassinate Trump" but the cover seems like a very tacit encouragement. It's a cheap, provocative, sensionalist title. The article is empty. Probably a good ad for them as people spread the cover. We'd need to know a few Irish opinions on this magazine. I would not read too much into it. I'm an Irish citizen but I've never been there. but apparently from what I can tell Irish people are mad mostly at Enda for not coming down harder on the refugee ban. don't know numbers or anything but the one Irish newsource I had had an opinion article accusing him of repeating Irelands appeasement from WWII
We are talking about the cover that the Village, an Irish magazine, put out with crosshairs on Trumps face. I didn't even realize the village was Irish until this so I got confused at first too.
|
On February 04 2017 09:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 09:19 nojok wrote:On February 04 2017 08:37 Nevuk wrote:On February 04 2017 08:36 Saryph wrote:
Couldn't dislike Trump more, but you can't do stuff like that Village. It feels like a giant troll that the entire article is "Why NOT to assassinate Trump" but the cover seems like a very tacit encouragement. It's a cheap, provocative, sensionalist title. The article is empty. Probably a good ad for them as people spread the cover. We'd need to know a few Irish opinions on this magazine. I would not read too much into it. I'm an Irish citizen but I've never been there
How's that work? Did you get an Irish passport by having an Irish grandparent, isn't that a rule they go by? I read that somewhere but never ran into anyone in that category.
|
A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking US President Donald Trump's recent executive order barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/04/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order
|
On February 04 2017 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 09:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 04 2017 09:19 nojok wrote:On February 04 2017 08:37 Nevuk wrote:On February 04 2017 08:36 Saryph wrote:
Couldn't dislike Trump more, but you can't do stuff like that Village. It feels like a giant troll that the entire article is "Why NOT to assassinate Trump" but the cover seems like a very tacit encouragement. It's a cheap, provocative, sensionalist title. The article is empty. Probably a good ad for them as people spread the cover. We'd need to know a few Irish opinions on this magazine. I would not read too much into it. I'm an Irish citizen but I've never been there How's that work? Did you get an Irish passport by having an Irish grandparent, isn't that a rule they go by? I read that somewhere but never ran into anyone in that category.
Irelands pretty lax about this stuff. probably due to population and people leaving I think. so If your parent (think it's only 1 might be 2) is an Irish born citizen your automatically one and then your kids can apply for citizenship. I think it continues on ad infinitum but not entirely sure about that point. but yeah both my dad's parents were born and grew up in Ireland. My grandpa should have inherited the farm but let's not get into that right now.
|
On February 04 2017 09:47 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking US President Donald Trump's recent executive order barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/04/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order
Guess Dems have a good reason to delay Gorsuch lol. Depending on the appellate court ruling, Trump may need Gorsuch to keep his EO alive. In that case I fully support delaying Gorsuch for political reasons.
|
There is no gaurantee that Gorsuch will uphold the EO. I'm actually very curious about the unconstitutional elements of this order. I know there was some due process violations in the airports. Maybe that clause with minority religions getting exemptions, that was probably a violation of the first ammendment? I didn't know that applied to people outside the US though. I'm seeing reporting on Expedia and Amazon supporting the AG lawsuit because their operations were impacted.
|
Democrats should (and look like they will) save their ammo. What happens when Trump wants to replace RBG and the filibuster is already gone? You can rely on Republican squishes like Collins to keep the filibuster if Democrats let Gorsuch through, but is a GOP senator going to vote no on confirmation of any Trump appointed judge? That's a harder case to make to their constituents.
|
I'd say it's still quite possible that some dems would have issues with the gorsuch case specifically due to the seat issue, but would have less of a problem with other replacements.
not that I'd mind the loss of the filibuster anyways, the current filibuster is trash, its' better to ditch it entirely, or go back to the old filibuster system, or add in a modified restricted version.
if we want more limits on getting stuff passed we should just have a constitutional amendment to require supermajorities for some things, rather than it being a procedural rule.
the whole notion of 2/5 can block something, unless the majority decides to disallow such blockings, is kinda silly.
I'd say don't filibuster gorsuch, just vote against him or abstain if you feel it necessary.
|
On February 04 2017 07:00 Blisse wrote:
Sorry why does everyone have to denounce lunacy again? I thought obviously we can tell lunacy from sanity (though idk if that's true given the number of people who would go to a rally to chant "build a wall" and "lock her up").
I thought the main problem was inconsistency - Trump's ilk will denounce Islamic terrorism but not anti-Muslim terrorism.
Anyways the media was reckless with how hard they pandered against Trump... but Trump is also awful in so many ways so it's hard to not agree with denouncing him... but they should've been aware of how much division they would cause?
The inconsistency has always been there,for example in foreign us policy. I dont get why people are suddenly upset,maybe it is because they are inconsistent themselves lol.
|
On February 04 2017 10:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 09:47 mahrgell wrote:A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking US President Donald Trump's recent executive order barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/04/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order Guess Dems have a good reason to delay Gorsuch lol. Depending on the appellate court ruling, Trump may need Gorsuch to keep his EO alive. In that case I fully support delaying Gorsuch for political reasons.
It seems impossible to me that a federal judge can axe the EO, trump could just say its a matter of national security (which it actually is according to the administration) and I think that gives him enough legal grounds for the order.
|
On February 04 2017 10:43 zlefin wrote:
I'd say it's still quite possible that some dems would have issues with the gorsuch case specifically due to the seat issue, but would have less of a problem with other replacements.
not that I'd mind the loss of the filibuster anyways, the current filibuster is trash, its' better to ditch it entirely, or go back to the old filibuster system, or add in a modified restricted version.
if we want more limits on getting stuff passed we should just have a constitutional amendment to require supermajorities for some things, rather than it being a procedural rule.
the whole notion of 2/5 can block something, unless the majority decides to disallow such blockings, is kinda silly.
I'd say don't filibuster gorsuch, just vote against him or abstain if you feel it necessary.
But isn't the point to have less limits on getting stuff passed? so to get Washington "working again" as trump says it. I don't see why people would want more restrictions,the filibuster is a complete joke,i don't know of any other western country that has something like that in place. Where people can just stop the whole process by abusing a specific mechanic and rule.
|
|
|
On February 04 2017 11:03 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 10:43 zlefin wrote:
I'd say it's still quite possible that some dems would have issues with the gorsuch case specifically due to the seat issue, but would have less of a problem with other replacements.
not that I'd mind the loss of the filibuster anyways, the current filibuster is trash, its' better to ditch it entirely, or go back to the old filibuster system, or add in a modified restricted version.
if we want more limits on getting stuff passed we should just have a constitutional amendment to require supermajorities for some things, rather than it being a procedural rule.
the whole notion of 2/5 can block something, unless the majority decides to disallow such blockings, is kinda silly.
I'd say don't filibuster gorsuch, just vote against him or abstain if you feel it necessary. But isn't the point to have less limits on getting stuff passed? so to get Washington "working again" as trump says it. I don't see why people would want more restrictions,the filibuster is a complete joke,i don't know of any other western country that has something like that in place. Where people can just stop the whole process by abusing a specific mechanic and rule.
well, I don't care what trump says, cuz he doesn't know anything about actually getting the system to work.
I did say the current filibuster is bad in that post of course, so not sure why you're responding as you are. I'm just saying if people want to keep the filibuster or some other supermajority requirement it'd make more sense to have it in the constitution than to be a rule that can be removed by a simple majority.
|
I think it's always funny that Catholics and Muslims are considered heretics by a subset of the American population while there's a few billion of them running around and their respective institutions exist for 2k years. Meanwhile if you believe that some prophet carried egyptian plates through the US and was visited by the angel Moroni you're golden
|
On February 04 2017 11:47 Nyxisto wrote:I think it's always funny that Catholics and Muslims are considered heretics by a subset of the American population while there's a few billion of them running around and their respective institutions exist for 2k years. Meanwhile if you believe that some prophet carried egyptian plates through the US and was visited by the angel Moroni you're golden
not sure what you're talking about here; as there's a sizeable subset which is very suspicious of mormonism. I would estimate considerably larger than the subset you refer to in your post.
|
On February 04 2017 12:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 11:47 Nyxisto wrote:I think it's always funny that Catholics and Muslims are considered heretics by a subset of the American population while there's a few billion of them running around and their respective institutions exist for 2k years. Meanwhile if you believe that some prophet carried egyptian plates through the US and was visited by the angel Moroni you're golden not sure what you're talking about here; as there's a sizeable subset which is very suspicious of mormonism. I would estimate considerably larger than the subset you refer to in your post.
Yeah Mormons are pretty disliked. There was a couple in my town, the woman was Mormon and the guy went to the Southern Baptist megachurch. When he died the funeral was at the Mormon church and the Baptists told their members not to go to the funeral
|
On February 04 2017 11:00 pmh wrote:
It seems impossible to me that a federal judge can axe the EO, trump could just say its a matter of national security (which it actually is according to the administration) and I think that gives him enough legal grounds for the order.
The judge can absolutely still do so if the actions are clearly illegal. For example, if the EO says to bar people from entry based on national origin in a context where there's a law that explicitly says the executive can't discriminate based on national origin.
|
On February 04 2017 11:00 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 10:06 Doodsmack wrote:On February 04 2017 09:47 mahrgell wrote:A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking US President Donald Trump's recent executive order barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/04/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order Guess Dems have a good reason to delay Gorsuch lol. Depending on the appellate court ruling, Trump may need Gorsuch to keep his EO alive. In that case I fully support delaying Gorsuch for political reasons. It seems impossible to me that a federal judge can axe the EO, trump could just say its a matter of national security (which it actually is according to the administration) and I think that gives him enough legal grounds for the order.
Presumably you have to actually show why it's a national security issue. Seems a bit strange to give the president carte blanche to violate any law he feels like as long as he says it's for natural security.
Anyway, top legal experts in the country seem divided over the master, so it's clearly not as simple as you make it out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
