EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1125
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 17 2019 07:10 Introvert wrote: I'm not interested in lectures on a president's using congressionally delegated powers (right or wrongly delegated) from a party that said nothing about DACA, DAPA, declarations that congress is not in session when it is, unauthorized payments to insurance companies, etc. You know, those things with no statutory basis. At least with Trump we have a statue we can debate and change. Everyone in favor of DACA should probably sit this one out. oh, and don't forget how they also rolled back the start of certain Obamacare rules and mandates based on...nothing. Man, there are SO MANY of these. I could easily debate that Obama's actions on DACA were prosecutorial discretion, but it was a move to bypass congress. So you are absolutely correct on that front. Glad you are willing agree that Obama was right to do so and force congress to act in some way. And of course next President can use the emergency powers to nationalize the healthcare industry and move money out of the military spending into infrastructure until congress reclaims these powers. Because the only way to move the ball forward is to force congress to act. It is clear we both agree these powers are to easily abused and that must be demonstrated. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5021 Posts
On February 17 2019 07:50 Plansix wrote: I could easily debate that Obama's actions on DACA were prosecutorial discretion, but it was a move to bypass congress. So you are absolutely correct on that front. Glad you are willing agree that Obama was right to do so and force congress to act in some way. And of course next President can use the emergency powers to nationalize the healthcare industry and move money out of the military spending into infrastructure until congress reclaims these powers. Because the only way to move the ball forward is to force congress to act. It is clear we both agree these powers are to easily abused and that must be demonstrated. the most straightforward, and you'd think least politically fraught issue, recess appointments, got not so much as a whimper. Didn't see anyone lighting their hair on fire there, either. So yeah, I'm gonna say doing what may be expressly authorized in statue (which the first two parts of what Trump is doing are) is better than just willing something into existence. But again, I'm undecided on the constitutional question here. Weird how many former fans of executive power aren't even unsure, they are absolutely certain. edit: removed snide comment because I sense a discussion about DACA coming and not about this issue. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 17 2019 07:59 Introvert wrote: + Show Spoiler + work permits are a part of prosecutorial discretion? wow! yes, as a conservative i have issues with all these administrative rules that are, to put it kindly, bent towards an end. but snide comments aside, the most straightforward, and you'd think least politically fraught issue, recess appointments, got not so much as a whimper. Didn't see anyone lighting their hair on fire there, either. So yeah, I'm gonna say doing what may be expressly authorized in statue (which the first two parts of what Trump is doing are) is better than just willing something into existence. But again, I'm undecided on the constitutional question here. Weird how many former fans of executive power aren't even unsure, they are absolutely certain. I saw a lot of conservatives lighting their hair on fire, but remaining silent when McConnell held up a historical number of judicial appointment. It is almost like it matters a whole lot more who is doing the bad thing, rather than how bad the thing is. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5021 Posts
edit: also, I know it's trite to say "not all x", but really, in this case, it is not all x. For example NR is pretty worked up about this. There is nothing approximating universality here. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
What you and are talking about is the violation of norms and leveraging of political power without concern for long term consequences. McConnel famously told Harry Reid he would regret using the nuclear option. And them, has majority leader, continued to hold of appointments and kill legislation. He leveraged power and got what he wanted. The conservatives have won. Lowest taxes since the 1920s, regulations have been rolled back and the federal government is toothless. Judges as far as the eye can see. Because they realized in the 1990s that the rules and norms don’t really matter. Winning matters. I’m simply saying that this is the path to victory for the democrats and left. So now is the time to leverage faux out rage at the use of executive power and to use the court system to deny Trump a win. Blame the likely coming recession on the Republicans and make sure they can’t do anything to soften the blow. And keep doing that until democrats dominate congress. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5021 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
This is the larger problem for Trump. He can't create new funding, so he has to take it from some place. Someplace that was going to use that money for something. And the groups/people that money to fix some problem they were dealing with are are going to be mad. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 17 2019 13:47 ticklishmusic wrote: i'm wondering if its worth letting trump try and execute on the wall and pissing off tons of texans vs. challenging it on court immediately. Probably. Fracturing his base by proposing the government seize private land for a wall that won't do anything would be much harder to spin than "angry Democrats obstructing all the time, SAD" | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 17 2019 07:22 Introvert wrote: we will find out, I've spent a decent amount of time now reading about this and slowly, as is the usual case, the view seems to be emerging that what he is doing is probably legal. The question you raise seems to be the one the smarter set of lawyers are talking about. "Does it count as an emergency" is not a question any court is going to want to answer. So we'll see after it goes through a few rounds in #resistance courts. But the president is on far firmer ground than his predecessor was on any of things I mentioned. I don't have a firm opinion yet on the constitutionality, and in general I oppose large grants of power... but I also know who I'm NOT listening to. but good on your for at least seeing the Democrat hypocrisy here, reading the above posts are good for a laugh. "Ha ha, we're all hypocrits! It's hilarious how fucked our system is! What a thigh-slapper!" I don't personally see the funny side in that, but you do you. On February 17 2019 12:30 JimmiC wrote: As an outsider, I dont even care so much about the legality and shit. What boggles my mind is zona and texas are huge rep strong holds and they HATE the wall. Basically every one who has put in 15 mins or more research knows a wall wont do shit to stop drugs or immigration. What a stupid hill to die on. Even if he wins and gets the wall he is going to lose votes. Also, hinging your argument on 'this thing is legal therefore okay' isn't the best argument in the same week that AOC has exposed just how unethical the standards of 'legal' are. The problem with 'legal' is that people get to decide what is or isn't legal, and what loopholes are permitted. The amount of heinous things done 'legally' by large corporations is shocking. Legality is a terrible last argument of resort in politics because it excises things like morality, which absolutely should be part of the process. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
I mean, i could put some witty lines in here, or go down the lines of "US bashing", but i mean.. I'm not sure what exactly to say here, these tweets speak for themselves. This is the United States literally threatening to send terrorists if the EU doesn't clean up the mess that the US is creating everywhere in the world. I mean, this is obviously neglecting the fact that it's the EU paying the bill for americas warmongering generally, since we take care of the people fleeing whatever country you're bombing currently. "This is just Trump being Trump, ignore it" doesn't work here either since he's literally trying to extort EU countries by threatening to release terrorists which are aiming for EU countries. | ||
|
Slydie
1998 Posts
On February 17 2019 21:36 m4ini wrote: So.. In regards to "being friends", and "allies" etc.. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096980408401625088 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096982979107278850 I mean, i could put some witty lines in here, or go down the lines of "US bashing", but i mean.. I'm not sure what exactly to say here, these tweets speak for themselves. This is the United States literally threatening to send terrorists if the EU doesn't clean up the mess that the US is creating everywhere in the world. I mean, this is obviously neglecting the fact that it's the EU paying the bill for americas warmongering generally, since we take care of the people fleeing whatever country you're bombing currently. "This is just Trump being Trump, ignore it" doesn't work here either since he's literally trying to extort EU countries by threatening to release terrorists which are aiming for EU countries. What is the deal about these 800 fighters? Why can't the US put them to trial? They captured them. Aren't there international agreements about what to do with prisoners of war? I would not call then all terrorists, but having them walking around is not a plesent thought, also not for the US. It doesn't make any sense... | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9330 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On February 17 2019 22:27 Sent. wrote: I think Trump means the terrorists with European citizenships. Would be rude to put them on trial in the US instead of sending them back to their home countries. That's why they're tried in the country where they committed the crimes. Remember all the other wars the US started? How often have you seen other presidents tell other countries that they have to persecute terrorists? Where was VW put on trial? Or Google/Facebook? Or literally any other crime committed by a foreigner? If you're right, and he exclusively means "the ones europe is technically responsible for because they're european citizens" (something that didn't seem that important when they were asking to extradite Yilmaz, was it?), fair enough. I'm absolutely in favour of every country taking responsibility for the mess they create. All of them. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8278 Posts
On February 17 2019 22:27 Sent. wrote: I think Trump means the terrorists with European citizenships. Would be rude to put them on trial in the US instead of sending them back to their home countries. Problem is that they haven't broken any civilian laws (well they might have done that too actually, but largely they'll be prisoners of war and possibly war criminals), so sending them to their respective "Home countries" to be put on trial doesn't make sense in this context. edit: Also, if it's a charge akin to a US' felony, you're usually put on trial in the country you've done the crime in and then extradited to your home country to serve the sentence later. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9330 Posts
On February 17 2019 23:47 m4ini wrote: That's why they're tried in the country where they committed the crimes. Remember all the other wars the US started? How often have you seen other presidents tell other countries that they have to persecute terrorists? Where was VW put on trial? Or Google/Facebook? Or literally any other crime committed by a foreigner? If you're right, and he exclusively means "the ones europe is technically responsible for because they're european citizens" (something that didn't seem that important when they were asking to extradite Yilmaz, was it?), fair enough. I'm absolutely in favour of every country taking responsibility for the mess they create. All of them. It's "important" now because it's an easy opportunity to reassure Trump supporters that their great president is a tough guy, while Western European countries aren't steppig up to their responsibilites. The common belief among Trump supporters is that Western Europe is way too lenient toward muslim terrorists, they think ISIS fighters coming back to Europe will get ridiculously short sentences at best, or free stuff at worst, in case they manage to convince the local authorities that they're 16 year old Syrian refugees. Put "important" in quotes becuase it's important only in the context of the tweet, I doubt Trump cares about what's going to happen to those ISIS fighters. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 17 2019 13:50 Plansix wrote: And a ton of folks in the military. They are taking money away from military housing near bases, which has been a problem for a decade. This is the larger problem for Trump. He can't create new funding, so he has to take it from some place. Someplace that was going to use that money for something. And the groups/people that money to fix some problem they were dealing with are are going to be mad. The funniest part about that is that it's the complete opposite of having Mexico pay for it. And dont think for a second that trump supports didnt take trump literally on that point. | ||
| ||
