EPTOn February 05 2017 09:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Typical Trump. This is going to be great lol.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6774
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Typical Trump. This is going to be great lol. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I actually don't disagree with Trump's assessment on its face. The fact that Putin is a killer isn't in and of itself a reason that I work with him. Like Trump said we do some bad shit in the name of national interest. The more poignant issue is his authoritarian control of the country. I've never liked dealing with countries like that but I understand the pragmatic side of it as well. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 05 2017 09:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/828026170302148608 Dudes got some favors to repay lol. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
 The Justice Department on Saturday evening filed a notice that it will formally appeal a federal judge's ruling halting President Trump's immigration order. Justice Department Attorney Michelle Bennett's filing was made in response to a temporary nationwide restraining order issued Friday that halted Trump's executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States. The case now goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge James Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003, had ruled Friday in a case involving Washington and Minnesota that stopped Trump's order immediately. Justice Dept. appeals federal judge's ruling halting immigration order | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 05 2017 10:58 biology]major wrote: So what happens if it goes to scotus and 4-4? The previous decision holds; no precedent is established. | ||
|
Archeon
3271 Posts
I'm not sure what's the solution outside of a bigger state that influences ethic ratios in areas (which is a bit racist) or dealing seriously with religious extremism, as in controlling of what is actually taught instead of leaving that to countries like SA or Turkey. On February 05 2017 10:12 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I missed multiple shit shows in this thread. I actually don't disagree with Trump's assessment on its face. The fact that Putin is a killer isn't in and of itself a reason that I work with him. Like Trump said we do some bad shit in the name of national interest. The more poignant issue is his authoritarian control of the country. I've never liked dealing with countries like that but I understand the pragmatic side of it as well. Well it's not like the US can just stop dealing with authoritarian dictatorships. They have a lot of trade deals and good diplomatic relationships with countries worse than Russia they'd have to cancel. I don't really get where the spite in the populace against Russia still comes from while the US gives military support to the theocratic Monarchy that invented and is still today spreading the extremist interpretation ISIS bases it's Jihad on. A country that systematically bombs the agriculture in a neighbor country so they can sell the starving populace food later. Trump just got over the cold war mentality before the leftish press did. The irony... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28866 Posts
And yeah, you do have positive relationships with worse countries than Russia and with worse leaders than Putin. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 05 2017 10:59 LegalLord wrote: The previous decision holds; no precedent is established. which is really annoying when different appeals circuit courts came to different conclusions. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14158 Posts
On February 05 2017 11:14 zlefin wrote: which is really annoying when different appeals circuit courts came to different conclusions. in all seriousness isn't this why we have different circuit courts or is that something else entirely? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 05 2017 11:22 Sermokala wrote: in all seriousness isn't this why we have different circuit courts or is that something else entirely? I think that's something else entirely, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. different circuit courts are for covering different geographic areas, and the appeals system is so there's a layer of appeals between the trial courts and the supreme court. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 05 2017 10:59 LegalLord wrote: The previous decision holds; no precedent is established. Here's something I really never understood: what if it's a case that's in the scotus's original jurisdiction? And why isn't this case original jurisdiction? It's a lawsuit between the states and the administration, right? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 05 2017 12:16 ChristianS wrote: Here's something I really never understood: what if it's a case that's in the scotus's original jurisdiction? And why isn't this case original jurisdiction? It's a lawsuit between the states and the administration, right? Things that are not good. Here's all the explanation you need. In cases of original jurisdication The situation is not so clear for Original Jurisdiction Deadlocks. In these cases, there is no lower court ruling to affirm. There have been only two original jurisdiction deadlocks. Michael Coenen summarizes: First, in the nineteenth century case of Virginia v. West Virginia, Chief Justice Chase announced that the Justices were “equally divided on the demurrer, and equally divided also upon the order which should be made in consequence of that division.” As a result, the matter stood unresolved for nearly three years. Second, in the twentieth-century disbarment action of In re Isserman, the Court split evenly on the question of disbarment but ordered disbarment anyway. One year later, the Court changed its mind and overruled its prior decision. The original post also links to a pdf that describes it in even more detail. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12484 Posts
On February 05 2017 09:34 biology]major wrote: This is a great point and I think an underestimated concern with refugee immigration, or immigration in general from these unstable countries. Given that refugees get to rely on the state, and also have a hard time with finding employment, the children aren't going to be in great conditions and are more prone to radicalization. Do you think having policies that declare them the enemy for no good reason will impact the chances of, let's say, children of iranian americans to radicalize in the future? | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On February 05 2017 14:50 lastpuritan wrote: Isn't it kinda annoying liberals try to hit Trump over Russia as if Obama did something to stop Putin killing civilians. I mean, the whole logic is so broken that if we compare the civilian casualties Putin caused are probably lower than Obama administration. I'm not a Trump supporter but that needs to be said. I'm sure O'Reilly was alluding more to the fact that Putin may have some dirty hands when it comes to bumping off political opponents and other perceived domestic trouble makers. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 05 2017 14:50 lastpuritan wrote: Isn't it kinda annoying liberals try to hit Trump over Russia as if Obama did something to stop Putin killing civilians. I mean, the whole logic is so broken that if we compare the civilian casualties Putin caused are probably lower than Obama administration. I'm not a Trump supporter but that needs to be said. They're a little weak if anybody hits back on Obama's record, you're right. But the effort is to look at Trump & Russia in isolation. And hopefully to make people forget how overboard they went on Russia and the election in the era of sore losers. I'm hawkish on US-Russian relations, and don't expect Trump to do well, for what it's worth. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On February 05 2017 14:50 lastpuritan wrote: Isn't it kinda annoying liberals try to hit Trump over Russia as if Obama did something to stop Putin killing civilians. I mean, the whole logic is so broken that if we compare the civilian casualties Putin caused are probably lower than Obama administration. I'm not a Trump supporter but that needs to be said. The highest number for Obama airstrike civilian casualties I've seen is 117. Feel free to correct me with a more accurate number. EDIT: I found a higher number - 380 - 801 Putin, however.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Second_Chechen_War (25 000 - 200 000 civilians), a lot of it indiscriminate shelling of population centers and atrocities) For the Syrian conflict: The Syrian Network for Human Rights had a higher toll than the VDC, but similar ratios. It said that by the end of December 2015, government forces had killed more than 187,000 civilians, armed opposition groups nearly 3,500, Russian forces 2,585, Isis 2,503 and coalition airstrikes 627. And the Ukrainian Donbass conflict has at least part of the 2,347 civilian death toll on Putin's hands. That minimum would be MH17 (283 dead). Add to that the journalists/political opponents he has killed for good measure. Those sanctions are there for a reason, and some of them are from Obama. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||
