A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[M Malice]

i watch Aron Ra quite a bit, great concise speaker. i am a very very casual observer of politics but how can a man like this become VP, it astounds me. i hope he doesn't become Trumps science czar.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The temporary stay on the executive order has been upheld by the appellate court. DoJ has to present an actual detailed legal argument now if they want to get this overturned.

 

[Skoob]

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

This is an article written by a pro-Trump lawyer, who has written no less than 5 pieces just on this topic. A bit biased to be taking legal advice from IMO.

Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons),

Not a fan of Judge Robart either, it would seem.

 

[pulpdriver]

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.

Yeah, that's sound reasoning actually. If the SCOTUS did tie the Washington block would remain, right? Or would it revert to the original EO?

I suppose they could try and tie things up until Gorsuch is instated at which point they'll likely have 5 from 9 votes but considering many Democrats already alluded that they would block or filibuster any Justice Trump nominated for SCOTUS, it's probably likely his installation isn't gonna be happening very soon, if at all. I guess they would want to have some genuine and legitimate intel to justify their ban on these 7 countries but considering it seems to have been on the cards for a while for the Trump admin that's probably unlikely. Still seems like it could get messy in the coming months.

On the subject of messy two of the Justices you mentioned are getting on in years and there was an article just recently on people seeking confirmation that Bader-Ginsberg's health was okay. If BG and Swing-man Kennedy were to resign or pass away during the next four years then there could be up to 7 Republican installed Justices on the Supreme court. Breyer is 78 so there's a remote possibility that it becomes 8. Not good to have so little balance in the SCOTUS.

 

[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.

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?

It is interesting that you seem to think that the last 8 years have no bearing on the circumstances and perceptions of current events ... that once someone is out of power their deeds are irrelevent and their legacies immaterial? Historically and politically let alone socially and economically that makes no sense. The reason we have a Godwin's law is because people are still allowing for the effects of someone who has been dead over 70 years.

In any case you gave a statement that included your subjective opinion (seeming / genuinely comes accross) - that you perceive his actions to be agaist the separation of powers, anti constitutional, and thinks he can do what he likes because he is the president.

I pointed out that those exact same subjective feelings have been being held by the other side about Obama for the last eight years - and that they, now, perceive Trump to be seeking to restore the balance of those powers, fighting for the constitution, and doing his best to bring the country back from the precipice they perceive it was about to walk over or at least to give it a decent crack.

Who is right or wrong - difficult to say at this point - but subjective opinion cannot (ok should not) be used to justify judgements of reality or declarations of objective truth. Different people see him as insane, brilliant, literally Hitler, Lincoln reborn, Sulla trying to save the republic, Agustus planning on taking on the Imperial mantle, clown, racist, bigotted, even handed, loyal, trecherous, hard working, driven etc etc etc and of course he cannot be all of those things.

When we try to understand where he is coming from we cannot just wipe out of the equation the circumstances leading up to it. There is nothing inherently evil in pointing out the hypocricy of people who cheered when their guy did something and jeer when the other guy does the same thing - or poiting it out on both sides (eg the concentration camps that Clinton ... and Bush ... and Obama ... and Trump were/are all going to build to control their enemies and stay in power)

Independent of the debate the specific EO/judicail rulings - I don't think it is irrelevent to point out how the same people who are up in arms over temporary travel bans while mechanisms are put into place for extreme vetting when put there by Trump were perfectly happy with extreme vettings when instituted by Obama ... or when the same group of countries are banned by a range of other countries (incluing muslim Kuwait) ... or how people who seem to be fine with countries permenantly banning Jewish visitors suddenly want to defend the poor muslims (who are the ones banning the Jews mostly) ... or when people consider riot/burn/batter/break/spew racist hate/throw rocks as legitimate expressions of opinion when done by one side and consider attempting to express a contrary opinion to their own to be violence ...

 

[Viceregal]

- 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 was speaking more to constitutional protection for non-citizens rather than specifically pertaining to that case.

I suppose I perceive illegal immigrants to be people who are already committing a crime and subsidised in that action by the previous government - criminals if not actually charged as such...

 

[Hollow Knight]

or how people who seem to be fine with countries permenantly banning Jewish visitors suddenly want to defend the poor muslims (who are the ones banning the Jews mostly) ... or when people consider riot/burn/batter/break/spew racist hate/throw rocks as legitimate expressions of opinion when done by one side and consider attempting to express a contrary opinion to their own to be violence ...

Well firstly I am not one of the people "who seem to be fine with countries permanently banning Jewish visitors. But let's put that one back on you... if you rightly find that to be disagreeable, how can you support Trump doing his own spin on that? Surely you either find that approach unacceptable or you don't. Surely "they did it first..." isn't a great model for statesmanship.

And you speak of Muslims as though they are a single, hive mind entity. Fortunately for Christians, seemingly every time one of their sheep commits an atrocity, the entire flock aren't tarred.

Just an observation but you seem to retreat behind very broad generalisations of large groups of people, as well as the old Fox News trick of "Some people say...". It's really hard to have a interpersonal discourse because I have to constantly distance myself from the views of "those Obama supporters" or "the people who are fine with the banning of Jews" etc.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Now that's good satire.

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/articl...-could-be-slippery-slope-people-marrying-dogs

 

[Fatcat08]

It is interesting that you seem to think that the last 8 years have no bearing on the circumstances and perceptions of current events ... that once someone is out of power their deeds are irrelevent and their legacies immaterial? Historically and politically let alone socially and economically that makes no sense. The reason we have a Godwin's law is because people are still allowing for the effects of someone who has been dead over 70 years.

In any case you gave a statement that included your subjective opinion (seeming / genuinely comes accross) - that you perceive his actions to be agaist the separation of powers, anti constitutional, and thinks he can do what he likes because he is the president.

I pointed out that those exact same subjective feelings have been being held by the other side about Obama for the last eight years - and that they, now, perceive Trump to be seeking to restore the balance of those powers, fighting for the constitution, and doing his best to bring the country back from the precipice they perceive it was about to walk over or at least to give it a decent crack.

Who is right or wrong - difficult to say at this point - but subjective opinion cannot (ok should not) be used to justify judgements of reality or declarations of objective truth. Different people see him as insane, brilliant, literally Hitler, Lincoln reborn, Sulla trying to save the republic, Agustus planning on taking on the Imperial mantle, clown, racist, bigotted, even handed, loyal, trecherous, hard working, driven etc etc etc and of course he cannot be all of those things.

When we try to understand where he is coming from we cannot just wipe out of the equation the circumstances leading up to it. There is nothing inherently evil in pointing out the hypocricy of people who cheered when their guy did something and jeer when the other guy does the same thing - or poiting it out on both sides (eg the concentration camps that Clinton ... and Bush ... and Obama ... and Trump were/are all going to build to control their enemies and stay in power)

Independent of the debate the specific EO/judicail rulings - I don't think it is irrelevent to point out how the same people who are up in arms over temporary travel bans while mechanisms are put into place for extreme vetting when put there by Trump were perfectly happy with extreme vettings when instituted by Obama ... or when the same group of countries are banned by a range of other countries (incluing muslim Kuwait) ... or how people who seem to be fine with countries permenantly banning Jewish visitors suddenly want to defend the poor muslims (who are the ones banning the Jews mostly) ... or when people consider riot/burn/batter/break/spew racist hate/throw rocks as legitimate expressions of opinion when done by one side and consider attempting to express a contrary opinion to their own to be violence ...

Putting the actual discussion to the side, using sweeping generalisations and shoehorning the person you're having a discussion with into a large group of faceless people who may have a certain view is a pretty poor way of arguing a point. The person you're talking to may not even hold many of those points of views, but you seem to making the assumption that being anti one thing means you're absolute pro the opposite. This is rarely the case and when you write something like the above, its like you're trying to write a blog to talk to a certain group of people, rather than engaging the person who you're talking to.

Note: Thats not to say the reverse isn't true either, as there is always the grouping of people who may support trump in certain areas into this large group where they're all the same and support everything he does, which they don't.

 

[dlanod]

Now that's good satire.

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/articl...-could-be-slippery-slope-people-marrying-dogs

Cory goes by the nickname of "dog ****er" in my workplace for obvious reasons.

 

[Viceregal]

Well firstly I am not one of the people "who seem to be fine with countries permanently banning Jewish visitors. But let's put that one back on you... if you rightly find that to be disagreeable, how can you support Trump doing his own spin on that? Surely you either find that approach unacceptable or you don't. Surely "they did it first..." isn't a great model for statesmanship.

It doesn't matter whether I agree with banning Jews or Muslims or Vegetarians or Martians - that is up to individual countries to decide who they want into their countries ... and for each decision there are consequences internally and externally. I have no trouble with Trump (or the other countries that do it) choosing to not import terrorists (or try not to) or anyone else who are avowed enemies of their country.

Statesmanship - Of course it isn't - but the point I was trying to make was not that you personally believed all of those things but a) that there are people who do and that your subjective preferences don't get to play out as objective truths and b) that when judging/interpreting people's reactions/actions/motivations that the way they have dealt with things in the past (especially the recent past) *is* relevant when they take an entirely different tack based on the branding of the messenger and that a blanket anything to do with Obama/Clinton is finished and done with and is irrelevant doesn't fly.

And you speak of Muslims as though they are a single, hive mind entity. Fortunately for Christians, seemingly every time one of their sheep commits an atrocity, the entire flock aren't tarred.

I expect Christians to, to some extent of another, follow the book of their founder. They may be good Christians or bad Christians but if they accept the truths in the book then they come under the heading of 'Christian'. If someone decides that they want be a Christian or call themselves a Christian and not follow the book or accept that Christ is saviour etc then they are nominal Christians (ie Christians by name only). A Christian may not be doing anything about converting the world but any Christian (non-nominal) would accept that that is something the Christ was into / that Christianity has as part of its core being.

Likewise with Muslims (followers of the way of Islam to be more precise) there are core elements in the book that any (non-nominal) Muslim agrees to - such as Sharia law being the only true law and trumping mere secular rules, the validity of the use of force in conversions, the death penalty for apostates etc. Other elements are matters of interpretation eg modest dressing is a core, hijabs and burkas are cultural expressions and interpretations of that. Islam is split into a range of groups (think denominations) who really don't get on together at all ... but in terms of the ultimate goal of anyone who takes the book seriously then yes you can talk about collegiate goals despite dispartate methodologies (eg one group could be aiming to facilitate the take over of the UK via importing and multiplying to use demographics to gain power ... another might explode themselves on the Underground or in a large gathering to create fear and destabilise the 'liberal' state to make it easier to manipulate/control ... and people could contribute money to both causes as part of advancing a global Caliphate etc).

Just an observation but you seem to retreat behind very broad generalisations of large groups of people, as well as the old Fox News trick of "Some people say...". It's really hard to have a interpersonal discourse because I have to constantly distance myself from the views of "those Obama supporters" or "the people who are fine with the banning of Jews" etc.

You might find it interesting that I have very similar feelings when I am typing with you...

 

[Ironmonger]

I expect Christians to, to some extent of another, follow the book of their founder. They may be good Christians or bad Christians but if they accept the truths in the book then they come under the heading of 'Christian'. If someone decides that they want be a Christian or call themselves a Christian and not follow the book or accept that Christ is saviour etc then they are nominal Christians (ie Christians by name only). A Christian may not be doing anything about converting the world but any Christian (non-nominal) would accept that that is something the Christ was into / that Christianity has as part of its core being.

Likewise with Muslims (followers of the way of Islam to be more precise) there are core elements in the book that any (non-nominal) Muslim agrees to - such as Sharia law being the only true law and trumping mere secular rules, the validity of the use of force in conversions, the death penalty for apostates etc. Other elements are matters of interpretation eg modest dressing is a core, hijabs and burkas are cultural expressions and interpretations of that. Islam is split into a range of groups (think denominations) who really don't get on together at all ... but in terms of the ultimate goal of anyone who takes the book seriously then yes you can talk about collegiate goals despite dispartate methodologies (eg one group could be aiming to facilitate the take over of the UK via importing and multiplying to use demographics to gain power ... another might explode themselves on the Underground or in a large gathering to create fear and destabilise the 'liberal' state to make it easier to manipulate/control ... and people could contribute money to both causes as part of advancing a global Caliphate etc).

VR, what are you trying to say here? I've read it three times now and I can't figure it out.

 

[Hollow Knight]

VR, what are you trying to say here? I've read it three times now and I can't figure it out.

Oh good, I was worried it was me. I didn't want to say anything just in case.

 

[James North]

Pick out the forceful and violent stuff from the bible and assume Christians want to implement all that stuff and you have a comparison.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Pick out the forceful and violent stuff from the bible and assume Christians want to implement all that stuff and you have a comparison.

Yeah, pretty much.

Plenty of god-sanctioned genocide, rape, murder, slavery, child sacrifice etc in all the monotheistic holy books. Make any particular religion the status quo in a region full of poverty, low education, tribal hatred, resource scarcity, wealth inequity and centuries of imperialist/colonialist interference and there is enough nasty stuff in any of the scriptures for the sheep-herders to exploit to manipulate the flock.

 

[Skoob]

It doesn't matter whether I agree with banning Jews or Muslims or Vegetarians or Martians - that is up to individual countries to decide who they want into their countries ... and for each decision there are consequences internally and externally. I have no trouble with Trump (or the other countries that do it) choosing to not import terrorists (or try not to) or anyone else who are avowed enemies of their country.

Statesmanship - Of course it isn't - but the point I was trying to make was not that you personally believed all of those things but a) that there are people who do and that your subjective preferences don't get to play out as objective truths and b) that when judging/interpreting people's reactions/actions/motivations that the way they have dealt with things in the past (especially the recent past) *is* relevant when they take an entirely different tack based on the branding of the messenger and that a blanket anything to do with Obama/Clinton is finished and done with and is irrelevant doesn't fly.



I expect Christians to, to some extent of another, follow the book of their founder. They may be good Christians or bad Christians but if they accept the truths in the book then they come under the heading of 'Christian'. If someone decides that they want be a Christian or call themselves a Christian and not follow the book or accept that Christ is saviour etc then they are nominal Christians (ie Christians by name only). A Christian may not be doing anything about converting the world but any Christian (non-nominal) would accept that that is something the Christ was into / that Christianity has as part of its core being.

Likewise with Muslims (followers of the way of Islam to be more precise) there are core elements in the book that any (non-nominal) Muslim agrees to - such as Sharia law being the only true law and trumping mere secular rules, the validity of the use of force in conversions, the death penalty for apostates etc. Other elements are matters of interpretation eg modest dressing is a core, hijabs and burkas are cultural expressions and interpretations of that. Islam is split into a range of groups (think denominations) who really don't get on together at all ... but in terms of the ultimate goal of anyone who takes the book seriously then yes you can talk about collegiate goals despite dispartate methodologies (eg one group could be aiming to facilitate the take over of the UK via importing and multiplying to use demographics to gain power ... another might explode themselves on the Underground or in a large gathering to create fear and destabilise the 'liberal' state to make it easier to manipulate/control ... and people could contribute money to both causes as part of advancing a global Caliphate etc).



You might find it interesting that I have very similar feelings when I am typing with you...

Lost me on the 3rd line. Sounds like you just labelled all those banned from entering as "terrorists", or at least make the same assumption as Trump, that anyone travelling in 7 countries could be. But not other countries? Weird, but mostly racist.

 

[Leemas]

Lost me on the 3rd line. Sounds like you just labelled all those banned from entering as "terrorists", or at least make the same assumption as Trump, that anyone travelling in 7 countries could be. But not other countries? Weird, but mostly racist.

Sorry I know this is a little off topic but wouldn't it technically be xenophobic and not racist? By my understanding of the words it should be unless someone can clarify. For whatever trivial reason it has always confused me and bugged me that people call those who dislike Muslims racist, because I don't think that's the correct word.

I know it adds nothing to the conversation but I'm sure there's a linguist on this board who can clarify.

 

[Caiphus]

Sorry I know this is a little off topic but wouldn't it technically be xenophobic and not racist? By my understanding of the words it should be unless someone can clarify. For whatever trivial reason it has always confused me and bugged me that people call those who dislike Muslims racist, because I don't think that's the correct word.

I know it adds nothing to the conversation but I'm sure there's a linguist on this board who can clarify.

The dictionary definition of racism has been moved away from in academic circles because it is already covered by prejudice and bigotry. "Racism" now refers to systemic racism or a combination of prejudice and power. Cultural differences are as relevant to race as the amount of melanin in someone's skin (which is only a genetic adaption to how close someone's ancestors spent generations close to the equator). Islamaphobia becomes racist when an entire religion gets reduced to a defining characteristic to generalise about a whole region of people.

 

[Leemas]

The dictionary definition of racism has been moved away from in academic circles because it is already covered by prejudice and bigotry. "Racism" now refers to systemic racism or a combination of prejudice and power. Cultural differences are as relevant to race as the amount of melanin in someone's skin (which is only a genetic adaption to how close someone's ancestors spent generations close to the equator). Islamaphobia becomes racist when an entire religion gets reduced to a defining characteristic to generalise about a whole region of people.

Makes sense cheers mate

 

[Tairy Greene]

The dictionary definition of racism has been moved away from in academic circles because it is already covered by prejudice and bigotry. "Racism" now refers to systemic racism or a combination of prejudice and power. Cultural differences are as relevant to race as the amount of melanin in someone's skin (which is only a genetic adaption to how close someone's ancestors spent generations close to the equator). Islamaphobia becomes racist when an entire religion gets reduced to a defining characteristic to generalise about a whole region of people.

You're quite the cunning linguist, Caiph!

 

[Elixuh]

Wasn't there a report released recently that found the chance of being killed by a 'refugee terrorist' is 1 in 3.64 billion?

One of the biggest issues is that for many people their only exposure to (for example) Muslim refugees is what they see on the news. So they get an extremely warped idea of the situation and of the people.

1 in 3.64 billion? The chance of winning the lotto is well under 1 in 100m...

 

[Caiphus]

Wasn't there a report released recently that found the chance of being killed by a 'refugee terrorist' is 1 in 3.64 billion?

One of the biggest issues is that for many people their only exposure to (for example) Muslim refugees is what they see on the news. So they get an extremely warped idea of the situation and of the people.

1 in 3.64 billion? The chance of winning the lotto is well under 1 in 100m...

Exactly, you've got more chance of being struck multiple times by lightning. Or getting struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark.

 

[Dizzle]

Exactly, you've got more chance of being struck multiple times by lightning. Or getting struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark.

That happened to me once.

 

[Davemonkey]

Sorry I know this is a little off topic but wouldn't it technically be xenophobic and not racist? By my understanding of the words it should be unless someone can clarify. For whatever trivial reason it has always confused me and bugged me that people call those who dislike Muslims racist, because I don't think that's the correct word.

I know it adds nothing to the conversation but I'm sure there's a linguist on this board who can clarify.

I'm with you Leemas. I think 'racist' has become a little too broad in its usage for much of the general use. I am personally trying to use 'bigoted' as it serves the purpose that 'racist' is being used for and feel more correct. Especially when talking about a cultural/religious group like Muslims or in transnational incidents of xenophobic views or behaviour.

 

[Davemonkey]

The dictionary definition of racism has been moved away from in academic circles because it is already covered by prejudice and bigotry. "Racism" now refers to systemic racism or a combination of prejudice and power. Cultural differences are as relevant to race as the amount of melanin in someone's skin (which is only a genetic adaption to how close someone's ancestors spent generations close to the equator). Islamaphobia becomes racist when an entire religion gets reduced to a defining characteristic to generalise about a whole region of people.

Fair point Caiphus but it doesn't quite feel right to me for cultural or religious groups. Probably petty pedantry but worth examining.