|
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 June 05 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Danglars, do you believe that Trump:
1) believes all muslims should be banned, but for legal reasons is narrowing his scope and targetting these specific countries
or
2) made bombastic statements that he didn't himself believe when he said all muslims should be banned as part of campaign strategy
if 1, do you have a problem with that? I agree with you that campaign rhetoric should ideally not be a factor and that an EO should be taken at face value on its merits alone. I'm also conflicted because in this specific situation, we have such a outlandish and blatant display of intent, that I am interested to see how the SCOTUS will read it.
In keeping with how this forums shifts topics and points of contention, I will not now get into my beliefs about what Trump believes. What tests judges use and the long history of case law on it are the topic. I found talking about symbolic climate change agreements quickly shifted to every possible construction of America's position in the world and I never saw a shred of proof for the teeth in a toothless agreement. Maybe if shitposter volume decreases in the future, bio-dude.
|
On June 05 2017 04:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 02:43 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:
I find great cause to fear for the circuit court's effects on campaign speech in the future. Hopefully, the justices of the Supreme Court clarify such a radical departure from Supreme Court precedent in Mandel and others. Yeah, if the courts keep using the stated intentions of individuals to draw conclusions about the intentions of those individuals then that could be the death of making wild unconstitutional promises during campaigns. Can you imagine the grim future in which politicians don't pledge to pass unconstitutional laws that discriminate against the people? I can greatly imagine any number of justices, including from my side of the aisle, cherry picking campaign quotes and interviews with advisors to support their desired result, whether constitutional or unconstitutional. I'm very glad this topic of discarding president was thoroughly and pointedly covered in the dissent from which I quoted.
Given the Muslim ban was a central plank of Trump's platform - present in speeches, interviews, website and other campaign material, it's hardly cherrypicking...
|
On June 05 2017 04:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Danglars, do you believe that Trump:
1) believes all muslims should be banned, but for legal reasons is narrowing his scope and targetting these specific countries
or
2) made bombastic statements that he didn't himself believe when he said all muslims should be banned as part of campaign strategy
if 1, do you have a problem with that? I agree with you that campaign rhetoric should ideally not be a factor and that an EO should be taken at face value on its merits alone. I'm also conflicted because in this specific situation, we have such a outlandish and blatant display of intent, that I am interested to see how the SCOTUS will read it.
In keeping with how this forums shifts topics and points of contention, I will not now get into my beliefs about what Trump believes. What tests judges use and the long history of case law on it are the topic. I found talking about symbolic climate change agreements quickly shifted to every possible construction of America's position in the world and I never saw a shred of proof for the teeth in a toothless agreement. Maybe if shitposter volume decreases in the future, bio-dude.
Did you just deflect the argument by shifting to a meta-discussion about criticism of shifting your argument? What is this, reductio ad Danglars?
If the travel ban was related to terrorism Trump should have put countries on the list that actually contribute to terrorism. His ban is simply, dare I say it, a symbolic and toothless act to appeal to his rabid base
|
On June 05 2017 04:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Danglars, do you believe that Trump:
1) believes all muslims should be banned, but for legal reasons is narrowing his scope and targetting these specific countries
or
2) made bombastic statements that he didn't himself believe when he said all muslims should be banned as part of campaign strategy
if 1, do you have a problem with that? I agree with you that campaign rhetoric should ideally not be a factor and that an EO should be taken at face value on its merits alone. I'm also conflicted because in this specific situation, we have such a outlandish and blatant display of intent, that I am interested to see how the SCOTUS will read it.
In keeping with how this forums shifts topics and points of contention, I will not now get into my beliefs about what Trump believes. What tests judges use and the long history of case law on it are the topic. I found talking about symbolic climate change agreements quickly shifted to every possible construction of America's position in the world and I never saw a shred of proof for the teeth in a toothless agreement. Maybe if shitposter volume decreases in the future, bio-dude.
ignoring an argument from me would make a lot of sense; but ignoring questoins from bio? not cool dude; bio's been fair to you, you should respond to him.
you're the one who constnatly shifted goalposts on that treaty discussion.
and trump shouldn't propose things that are unconstitutional and have no legitimate purpose like this muslim ban thing.
i'm not entirely claer on the legal particulars; but it is clear that it has NO legitimate purpose; and it's intent is discriminatory. which is reason enough to block it imho.
sad that you complain about shitposter volume when you're one of the chief sources of it.
|
Keep in mind that the reason this came up was that Trump just tweeted using the ban verbiage and sabotaged the attempts of his own officials to call it anything but a ban. This doesn't really involve campaigning at all (unless one holds the position he can call anything campaigning indefinitely).
It also could hurt him quite badly if it turns out that the perpetrators, like the Manchester bomber, were Muslims but not from any of the countries on his list. Because the travel ban as written clearly won't keep us safe from them.
I will say I find it fascinating that the newest version defangs the parts about refugees a fair bit. I'm not sure anyone told him that yet.
|
To paraphrase Melissa McCarthy, "He's using your word. That's your word. That you are using when you quote him."
|
On June 05 2017 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 04:49 Danglars wrote:On June 05 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Danglars, do you believe that Trump:
1) believes all muslims should be banned, but for legal reasons is narrowing his scope and targetting these specific countries
or
2) made bombastic statements that he didn't himself believe when he said all muslims should be banned as part of campaign strategy
if 1, do you have a problem with that? I agree with you that campaign rhetoric should ideally not be a factor and that an EO should be taken at face value on its merits alone. I'm also conflicted because in this specific situation, we have such a outlandish and blatant display of intent, that I am interested to see how the SCOTUS will read it.
In keeping with how this forums shifts topics and points of contention, I will not now get into my beliefs about what Trump believes. What tests judges use and the long history of case law on it are the topic. I found talking about symbolic climate change agreements quickly shifted to every possible construction of America's position in the world and I never saw a shred of proof for the teeth in a toothless agreement. Maybe if shitposter volume decreases in the future, bio-dude. Did you just deflect the argument by shifting to a meta-discussion about criticism of shifting your argument? What is this, reductio ad Danglars? If the travel ban was related to terrorism Trump should have put countries on the list that actually contribute to terrorism. His ban is simply, dare I say it, a symbolic and toothless act to appeal to his rabid base
DIdn't he just use Obama's list of countries with terrorist activity? Which, admittedly, was a symbolic and toothless appeal, but to American economic interests, and not Trumps base.
|
On June 05 2017 05:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:On June 05 2017 04:49 Danglars wrote:On June 05 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Danglars, do you believe that Trump:
1) believes all muslims should be banned, but for legal reasons is narrowing his scope and targetting these specific countries
or
2) made bombastic statements that he didn't himself believe when he said all muslims should be banned as part of campaign strategy
if 1, do you have a problem with that? I agree with you that campaign rhetoric should ideally not be a factor and that an EO should be taken at face value on its merits alone. I'm also conflicted because in this specific situation, we have such a outlandish and blatant display of intent, that I am interested to see how the SCOTUS will read it.
In keeping with how this forums shifts topics and points of contention, I will not now get into my beliefs about what Trump believes. What tests judges use and the long history of case law on it are the topic. I found talking about symbolic climate change agreements quickly shifted to every possible construction of America's position in the world and I never saw a shred of proof for the teeth in a toothless agreement. Maybe if shitposter volume decreases in the future, bio-dude. Did you just deflect the argument by shifting to a meta-discussion about criticism of shifting your argument? What is this, reductio ad Danglars? If the travel ban was related to terrorism Trump should have put countries on the list that actually contribute to terrorism. His ban is simply, dare I say it, a symbolic and toothless act to appeal to his rabid base DIdn't he just use Obama's list of countries with terrorist activity? Which, admittedly, was a symbolic and toothless appeal, but to American economic interests, and not Trumps base.
originally but then they took Iraq off I think because of all the soldiers coming from there for the revised one so not as strong of an argument for that now (or at least a quite a few people have argued that)
|
On June 05 2017 04:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Danglars, do you believe that Trump:
1) believes all muslims should be banned, but for legal reasons is narrowing his scope and targetting these specific countries
or
2) made bombastic statements that he didn't himself believe when he said all muslims should be banned as part of campaign strategy
if 1, do you have a problem with that? I agree with you that campaign rhetoric should ideally not be a factor and that an EO should be taken at face value on its merits alone. I'm also conflicted because in this specific situation, we have such a outlandish and blatant display of intent, that I am interested to see how the SCOTUS will read it.
In keeping with how this forums shifts topics and points of contention, I will not now get into my beliefs about what Trump believes. What tests judges use and the long history of case law on it are the topic. I found talking about symbolic climate change agreements quickly shifted to every possible construction of America's position in the world and I never saw a shred of proof for the teeth in a toothless agreement. Maybe if shitposter volume decreases in the future, bio-dude.
I was just mostly curious about your personal beliefs danglars, don't care for an argument.
|
Trump does not want to ban all muslims I think,i am sure the Saudi oil princes are still welcome in the usa. He wants to ban people from several countries which is something different. Not sure if that would be allowed according to the constitution but I imagine it would not be impossible. But yes,trump is starting to become annoying even for me lol. I do wonder if there is a way back after trump. Like the next president,would he go back to Obama,s international politics or will he retain some of the things that trump has started,like for example being more critical about other nato members,germany specifically?
|
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant.
|
If Trump loses in 2020, the correction will be rapid, since most people and leaders around the world see Trump as an anomaly.
|
On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant.
NATO is a fossil. What's the fascination with US treasure and blood being obligated to serve European regional interests? The USSR is no longer around and Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself.
|
On June 05 2017 07:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant. NATO is a fossil. What's the fascination with US treasure and blood being obligated to serve European regional interests? The USSR is no longer around and Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself.
*cough* Afghanistan *cough*
|
Does the acting President automatically get the Party's nomination?
|
On June 05 2017 07:06 Artisreal wrote:
Does the acting President automatically get the Party's nomination?
there's been attempts to primary in the past. Johnson withdrew rather than face it(pretty sure). Huey Long was in the process of primaring Roosevelt when he was assassinated. I want to say historically that if your in danger of being priamry'd you just don't run
|
United States42367 Posts
On June 05 2017 07:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant. NATO is a fossil. What's the fascination with US treasure and blood being obligated to serve European regional interests? The USSR is no longer around and Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself.
NATO does not serve European regional interests, it serves the interests of all its members, the US included.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant.
Maybe not Trump's specific rhetoric given that his rhetoric was 85% nonsense 15% populism, but in general Americans are very much leaning towards isolationism. That isn't going to change just because Trump is incompetent.
|
On June 05 2017 07:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:06 Artisreal wrote:
Does the acting President automatically get the Party's nomination? there's been attempts to primary in the past. Johnson withdrew rather than face it(pretty sure). Huey Long was in the process of primaring Roosevelt when he was assassinated. I want to say historically that if your in danger of being priamry'd you just don't run
ted kennedy primaried carter too
|
On June 05 2017 07:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant. Maybe not Trump's specific rhetoric given that his rhetoric was 85% nonsense 15% populism, but in general Americans are very much leaning towards isolationism. That isn't going to change just because Trump is incompetent.
Yeah, I look forward to seeing the future of the US' policy on the globalism v. isolationism thing, I agree that isolationism seems like its whats going to be happening for at least the immediate future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
