A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Skoob]

Trump is one very crazy man. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he did say all was well with the deal, then change his mind.

He is fast alienating the whole world it seems. He has no finesse at all. No wonder Melania wants to stay in NY..

This was my suspicion from the start. To say he would honour a deal is one thing, to actually honour it , another.
That aside, who believed he would take over a thousand people he has just banned? Trump (including this situation) is exactly what I expected.
What more concerns me is the lies of Turnbull. This was never happening and he continues to mislead over the conversation. I haven't seen any details of the 'deal'. Just what did he offer the POTUS? He will lick the arse of the US in much the same way Howard did. Scoundrels.

While on the topic of lies, has anyone else noted LNP members in particular, up the ante with their lying since Trump's inauguration? With how blatant Trump, Conway and Spicer have been with lies and largely getting away with it, it seems Australia's conservatives have been emboldened and gone from misleading to straight out liars.

 

[SizeMatters]

Trump can't do much anyway in the long term at least. He still needs funding and the Federal Reserve will make it extremely hard for him especially considering the Jews aren't a fan of Trump pulling out of middle east after the US has been doing the dirty work for Israel. Expect Israel to increase civil unrest within the Palestine especially if the Russian-backed Assad regime start to exert more authority over the region and try to undermine the oil industry and strengthens Syria... Remember Israel has its eyes on large portions of Syria as well. Wouldn't be surprised if Israel coaxes Iran or Russian-backed Assad regime into a retaliation... WW3 anyone?

I would be surprised if Trump survives past this term TBH... So many mentally disturbed people in the USA with easy access to weapons.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/b...ssed-with-the-fourth-turning-2017-2?r=UK&IR=T

A bit ****ing terrifying.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Yep, all roads lead back to Bannon. Clearly the puppet master of the administration and his world views are ugly.

 

[jackess]

Yep, all roads lead back to Bannon. Clearly the puppet master of the administration and his world views are ugly.

I've been a bit confused about the amount of anger aimed towards Trump instead of the Republican party and the people behind the scenes.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I've been a bit confused about the amount of anger aimed towards Trump instead of the Republican party and the people behind the scenes.

Bannon isn't an establishment Republican by any measure.

Reince Priebus obviously is but it seems like they will be pulling Trump in completely different directions.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Oh dear. Prime Minister Trumble.

LOL.

 

[Elixuh]

You can't make this up.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Malcolm vs Donald... the Rumble in the Trumble.

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[Tairy Greene]

My god, "I enjoyed a long call, the longest! No call has been longer than ours!"

lmao just realised it's a parody account, whew boy.

 

[jackess]

I might have posted this before but I'm still uncomfortable how quickly events are turned into memes.

Seems like people are more likely to make fun of these events then to actually consider the consequences.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I might have posted this before but I'm still uncomfortable how quickly events are turned into memes.

Seems like people are more likely to make fun of these events then to actually consider the consequences.

I personally enjoy a rigorous political discussion and a childish meme in equal measure.

It can definitely be seen as dumbing down and trivialising serious issues but I also think for some people, if it wasn't for memes, they'd have zero political awareness of engagement whatsoever. Double edged sword.

 

[Caiphus]

I thought it was "Trumbull" and perhaps that Malcolm has been absorbed into the hive mind. That or they are now in a tight knit relationship with tabloid ready nickname.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Good read from Politico.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Trump S01E03 - Donald Learns About The Constitution.

What a moron this man is.

 

[Davemonkey]

I don't know about stupidity really, but he has certainly a combination of low cunning and studied ignorance that would be hilarious to behold if he wasn't, you know, POTUS.

 

[Viceregal]

Trump S01E03 - Donald Learns About The Constitution.

What a moron this man is.

A tad lacking in context here ... I would assume you are talking about the Portland judge thing except that a country has every right to decide who can come to its shores and the protections of the Constitution of the United States of America only apply to actual American citizens ... and the judge in question has had his decision appealed against by the DOJ and it will be thrown out (as opposed to the decision by the judge in Boston who provided actual legal precedent for his actions).

Sorry - typed past my question - in what way are you alluding to the constitution biting back at Trump in your comment?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Sorry - typed past my question - in what way are you alluding to the constitution biting back at Trump in your comment?

His seeming complete lack of comprehension of the Separation of Powers and the tripartite system of government as laid out in the Constitution. He genuinely comes across as expecting the presidency to be totalitarian policy blank cheque. He's wrong.

And of course the DOJ appealed, they work for Trump. We'll see what the outcome is. You seem very confident it will be "thrown out". I'm not sure where you have come to the view that the Constitution doesn't offer any protections to non-citizens. As far as I am aware, the Bill of Rights (AKA the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) protect everyone, including illegal immigrants. There is also a case that the 14th amendment also covers everyone. This is the amendment that guarantees due process, which just happened to for, the basis of the State of Washington vs Donald J Trump case.

I think it's much more likely that parts of the order will be deemed not legal, and other parts will be cleared. Even then, Trump will no doubt claim a rousing victory against Liberal activist "so-called judges" (who happen to be appointed by Republican presidents and confirmed by the senate 99-0). I'm sure the appellate judges that will hear the DOJ appeal are just dying to do a Trump a favour after his pathetic rhetoric against the judicial branch.

Your boy's a dud Vice. You've been had.

 

[pulpdriver]

His seeming complete lack of comprehension of the Separation of Powers and the tripartite system of government as laid out in the Constitution. He genuinely comes across as expecting the presidency to be totalitarian policy blank cheque. He's wrong.

And of course the DOJ appealed, they work for Trump. We'll see what the outcome is. You seem very confident it will be "thrown out". I'm not sure where you have come to the view that the Constitution doesn't offer any protections to non-citizens. As far as I am aware, the Bill of Rights (AKA the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) protect everyone, including illegal immigrants. There is also a case that the 14th amendment also covers everyone. This is the amendment that guarantees due process, which just happened to for, the basis of the State of Washington vs Donald J Trump case.

I think it's much more likely that parts of the order will be deemed not legal, and other parts will be cleared. Even then, Trump will no doubt claim a rousing victory against Liberal activist "so-called judges" (who happen to be appointed by Republican presidents and confirmed by the senate 99-0). I'm sure the appellate judges that will hear the DOJ appeal are just dying to do a Trump a favour after his pathetic rhetoric against the judicial branch.

Your boy's a dud Vice. You've been had.

14th amendment is the one of the most contentiously defined within the constitution and has been the source of battles for decades. It seems rife for objections from either side and a total mess that is guaranteed to be met with arguments from both sides due to some poor and questionable classifications for many things.

If there's an objection from a judge to an executive order I don't anticipate orders being thrown out as previously suggested, but more likely being moved to the supreme court upon appeal. I don't think any EOs from Trump will get blocked through the SCOTUS on appeal.

 

[Viceregal]

His seeming complete lack of comprehension of the Separation of Powers and the tripartite system of government as laid out in the Constitution. He genuinely comes across as expecting the presidency to be totalitarian policy blank cheque. He's wrong.

Others felt the same way about Obama and see Trump as reinstating constitutional government and rule of law.

And of course the DOJ appealed, they work for Trump. We'll see what the outcome is. You seem very confident it will be "thrown out". I'm not sure where you have come to the view that the Constitution doesn't offer any protections to non-citizens. As far as I am aware, the Bill of Rights (AKA the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) protect everyone, including illegal immigrants. There is also a case that the 14th amendment also covers everyone. This is the amendment that guarantees due process, which just happened to for, the basis of the State of Washington vs Donald J Trump case.

I think it's much more likely that parts of the order will be deemed not legal, and other parts will be cleared. Even then, Trump will no doubt claim a rousing victory against Liberal activist "so-called judges" (who happen to be appointed by Republican presidents and confirmed by the senate 99-0). I'm sure the appellate judges that will hear the DOJ appeal are just dying to do a Trump a favour after his pathetic rhetoric against the judicial branch.

Your boy's a dud Vice. You've been had.

My reasoning for thinking it will not fly is from http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-...will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

There are some rights that all have and some that they don't all have ...
- shooting of non-citizens because they are visiting - not allowed (unless of course the 'visiting' people are also armed invaders bent of subverting the country they are visiting but that is a different kettle of fish)
- right to vote - only applied to legal citizens (voting when you are not a legal citizen being a crime)
- freedom of association - they all get that (except maybe Milo) unless for illegal purposes (I suspect that gathering together as an old time Democrat KKK mob to lynch some uppity new style Democrat BLMers would not be covered)
- freedom of travel - people inside the country legally sure (except for some eg criminals who have to get permission from their parole guy to do so or convicted paedophiles who want to hang around school yards etc) - but every country in the world has the right to say who can cross its border
- due process - pretty much everybody - but due process of law also means that applying the laws means that some people who have broken the law to be there in the first place, who are receiving housing/medical/food etc on the taxpayer's dime, who don't pay taxes, who illegally vote in the elections of a country not their own etc etc are going to find due process and rule of law to be something that will reduce their current quality of life.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Well all I know is that in my opinion the best way to run a country is to make executive orders and hope they end up being constitutional.

 

[Hollow Knight]

If there's an objection from a judge to an executive order I don't anticipate orders being thrown out as previously suggested, but more likely being moved to the supreme court upon appeal. I don't think any EOs from Trump will get blocked through the SCOTUS on appeal.

Correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding SCOTUS (if it got that far) wouldn't have be asked to to block the EO, they would have to decide whether to overturn the stay. That would requite 5/8 judges. Seems unlikely from where I sit.

Even if it was a direct assessment of the EO itself... Sotomayor, Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagen all have pretty strong established civil rights leanings. So the DOJ would need to desperately hope for one of those to turn and that's if they can win over a semi-moderate in Kennedy which is certainly no sure thing. Remember again that the stay was granted by a Republican appointed Federal judge... who is to say that one of the right leaning Supreme Court justices wouldn't waver either... especially after Trump firing salvos at the judiciary.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Others felt the same way about Obama and see Trump as reinstating constitutional government and rule of law.

Surely we're past using "but Obama..." and "but her emails..." as a proxy for an actual argument now.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Others felt the same way about Obama and see Trump as reinstating constitutional government and rule of law.

Surely we're past using "but Obama..." and "but her emails..." as a proxy for an actual argument now. Are we talking about the actual law or the court of public opinion here?

- due process - pretty much everybody - but due process of law also means that applying the laws means that some people who have broken the law to be there in the first place, who are receiving housing/medical/food etc on the taxpayer's dime, who don't pay taxes, who illegally vote in the elections of a country not their own etc etc are going to find due process and rule of law to be something that will reduce their current quality of life.

I only quoted this one because it seems to be the only example of relevance to the Washington v Trump decision. It's not quite clear what you are arguing here... it's a little rambly. But my reading seems to indicate that due process is about the application of rights in a range of situations where the state needs to make a determination on the rights to be granted or withheld from a person, not just the rights of those charged with a crime.

I personally can't see how a decision on their eligibility to enter is deemed to be fair, impartial and following due process if they are deemed ineligible merely based on their religion or nationality.

And it is important to note, it doesn't have to be proven beyond doubt that the official rejection was based on their religion/nationality, it just has to be believed that they were strong contributing factors behind the establishment of the executive order. I don't think it will be too hard to convince 4 liberal SCOTUS justices of that. Trump has given them plenty of evidence to get started with in his extremely cavalier rhetoric at his rallies, stump speeches and tweets.