A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[The Flying Belgian]

Which ban? The 1924 immigration act? Not gonna try and defend that but it seemed very broad and Japan one of the countries impacted seemed almost incidental considering it seemed to target restricting Italian other European immigration more directly. The militarisation of Japan commenced much earlier, signified by them defeating Russia in 1905. It'd be a stretch to say that American immigration restrictions was a significant or even noteworthy factor behind the militarisation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbour that brought the US into World War 2, though admittedly I'm not familiar on Showa Nationalism and will need to read up on that.

It is recorded that Japan declared a day of mourning and humiliation when the law was passed. I think there was also a commission in the US post-WWII that pinpointed the passing of that act as a contributing factor. I mistyped about the militarisation of Japan, because that had already occurred - you are quite right.

 

[pulpdriver]

It is recorded that Japan declared a day of mourning and humiliation when the law was passed. I think there was also a commission in the US post-WWII that pinpointed the passing of that act as a contributing factor. I mistyped about the militarisation of Japan, because that had already occurred - you are quite right.

In 1924 or 1942? If the former that is quite revealing and I was not aware.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

In 1924 or 1942? If the former that is quite revealing and I was not aware.

1924. I should clarify that I don't think it was officially declared a day of mourning, at least not by the government. it seems to have been press-driven...

Soho Tokutomi, ... considered the dean of the press, called July 1, the day that the new immigration law went into effect, a "day of national indignation" and urged a patriotic anti-American patriotic Asianism. Kanzo Uchimura, a major Christian intellectual and founder of the nondenominational "no-church" movement, declared himself "angered at the trampling of universal justice" and urged an anti-American boycott: "At all costs, do not go to America, do not use American goods, do not accept American aid, do not read Americans writings, do not enter American churches."

The April 21 Tokyo newspapers' statement urged the exclusion of American materials and contractors from the reconstruction work on Tokyo and Yokohama.

Source

The rest of that link^^ is worth a read also.

Interestingly enough, the anti-American sentiment was still reportedly strong (perhaps even stronger) more than a decade on. US Senator William Benton was quoted thus:

happened to be in Japan in 1937 on the anniversary of the day when the United States enacted its Oriental Exclusion Act. To my astonishment, I saw black flags break out all over Tokyo, even draped on buildings. It was a national day of mourning in Japan, a day of humiliation.

Source

I'm not defending Japan at all, after all they had some questionable practices in Korea and Manchuria. But, it's all about consequences - if you offend a proud nation, ethnic group, etc. you're playing with fire. And if you fail to understand other those nations, ethnic groups, etc. you're probably going to get burnt.

 

[pulpdriver]

1924. I should clarify that I don't think it was officially declared a day of mourning, at least not by the government. it seems to have been press-driven...



The rest of that link^^ is worth a read also.

Interestingly enough, the anti-American sentiment was still reportedly strong (perhaps even stronger) more than a decade on. US Senator William Benton was quoted thus:

Bookmarked that and will read when I get a chance. Thanks for the link, Belgo.

I'm not defending Japan at all, after all they had some questionable practices in Korea and Manchuria. But, it's all about consequences - if you offend a proud nation, ethnic group, etc. you're playing with fire. And if you fail to understand other those nations, ethnic groups, etc. you're probably going to get burnt.

Wise words. I'm also not attacking Japan, their country is one of my favourites to visit and the people are fantastic. Just needed clarifying on a few things.

 

[pulpdriver]

He mad. As anticipated this will be going to the SCOTUS.
Popcorn.gif

 

[Hollow Knight]

Haha 3-0 as well! This is scrumptious. Being all in CAPS is even better. He's aware that it has been "in court" twice already now right?

Nom nom nom!

 

[Hollow Knight]

As I said a couple of pages ago, Trump's careless and cavalier public rhetoric was going to be used against him and bite him on the arse in court.

 

[Hollow Knight]

He he he. That will wind up the SOBs.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Trump is taking the Essendon approach to legal proceedings.

 

[dlanod]

He's hoping he's the Cavaliers or Cubs of politics, coming back from 3-0.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

View attachment 335058
He mad. As anticipated this will be going to the SCOTUS.
Popcorn.gif

Who's he talking to? The US Federal Appeals court? He's going to see a court in court? I hope the supreme court is big enough to hold the appeals court.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I'm dying here. Lol.

 

[Hollow Knight]

So much salt from Trump fans on Twitter. They just can't wrap their head around the fact their their benevolent leader is bound by the *gasp* LAW!

Maybe the lightbulb will come on eventually.

 

[pulpdriver]

Who's he talking to? The US Federal Appeals court? He's going to see a court in court? I hope the supreme court is big enough to hold the appeals court.

Should be clear at this point Trump speaks to the void with no intended audience. Those that support him will pick it up, those which don't will attack.

So much salt from Trump fans on Twitter. They just can't wrap their head around the fact their their benevolent leader is bound by the *gasp* LAW!

Maybe the lightbulb will come on eventually.

View attachment 335096

I only had a cursory glance at the EO but this there anything definitively illegal or contradictory to the constitution there?

I enjoy a political sideshow provided it inadvertently supports a cause and think we will get one but I'm not sure anything cited there actually breaches any exisiting law or breaches any stipulation. It's effectively a 90 day ban whilst those countries reply to existing (if any) intelligence reports to warrant their status as an open immigration partner.

Trump's gasbagging during the primaries is the only thing that gives me reason to openly oppose it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I only had a cursory glance at the EO but this there anything definitively illegal or contradictory to the constitution there?

There is interesting arguments either way. Got discussed earlier in the thread.

These arguments won't get tested in court until Trump's legal team presents a defense on the policy's merits rather than the "the judiciary has no jurisdiction to tell us what to do" approach that has been knocked on head the twice.

 

[pulpdriver]

There is interesting arguments either way. Got discussed earlier in the thread.

These arguments won't get tested in court until Trump's legal team presents a defense on the policy's merits rather than the "the judiciary has to grounds to tell us what to do" approach that has been knocked on the twice.

Gonna be an interesting couple of months. Hopefully parties meet quickly to detail any intel they have on specific countries and bans are appropriately lifted, thrown out or ratified.

Although realistically we're gonna get the appeal withheld and have to focus on months of Trump fighting to get Gorusch instated.

popcorn.gif

 

[dlanod]

I only had a cursory glance at the EO but this there anything definitively illegal or contradictory to the constitution there?

I enjoy a political sideshow provided it inadvertently supports a cause and think we will get one but I'm not sure anything cited there actually breaches any exisiting law or breaches any stipulation. It's effectively a 90 day ban whilst those countries reply to existing (if any) intelligence reports to warrant their status as an open immigration partner.

Trump's gasbagging during the primaries is the only thing that gives me reason to openly oppose it.

The legal issue as I understand it is that it violates due process.

People had legal visas of various forms. These were all effectively revoked without an avenue of appeal. If Trump had just signed an EO saying no more visas would be provided to people from those countries for the 90 days he'd probably be fine and dandy right now.

 

[pulpdriver]

The legal issue as I understand it is that it violates due process.

People had legal visas of various forms. These were all effectively revoked without an avenue of appeal. If Trump had just signed an EO saying no more visas would be provided to people from those countries for the 90 days he'd probably be fine and dandy right now.

But doesn't due process evolve to the stipulations and demands of the current admin? I would've though that any amendments reflects a potential change in a plastic stipulation that reflects current laws as governed by the ruling party.

 

[SizeMatters]

I'm starting to like Trump. He is a different character that's for sure and seems to actually act on his election promises regardless if you think they are good or not. Wish we had Politicians that had half the guts Trump has knowing full well he's probably going to lose the small amount of credibility he has.

Instead, we are stuck with 'cucks' (?) that bend over far too easily.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The legal issue as I understand it is that it violates due process.

People had legal visas of various forms. These were all effectively revoked without an avenue of appeal.

Not to mention those with actual green cards.

If he could rein in his ego and amend the EO he'd be fine but he just can't let anything go. Emotionally immature in the extreme.

He may be forced to do so anyway, because there is no guarantee the SCOTUS will even take on the case.

 

[pulpdriver]

I'm starting to like Trump. He is a different character that's for sure and seems to actually act on his election promises regardless if you think they are good or not. Wish we had Politicians that had half the guts Trump has knowing full well he's probably going to lose the small amount of credibility he has.

Instead, we are stuck with 'cucks' (?) that bend over far too easily.

It's quite easy to like Trump because he represents a complete and utter eradication of political responsibilities that politicians are generally supposed to hold. In essence he's completely and utterly different and if you're sick of the same old s**t you'll give him a vote for the sake of it.

My impuissant support of Trump as a non-citizen ties directly to the anti-establishment of existing political parties and their offensive relationships. Give the people a viable and responsible alternative and watch them vote. Candidates like Trump will not be a factor.

Though I personally believe a two party system is and will always be flawed.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I'm starting to like Trump. He is a different character that's for sure and seems to actually act on his election promises regardless if you think they are good or not.

Having the courage of your convictions is a great attribute for a leader to have, as long as your convictions aren't deplorable.

And let's face it, he lost the popular vote by a significant margin. A statesman would recognise that fact, temper the rhetoric, engage in some political nation building and try to bring the public with him on these decisions. Donald is clearly no statesman.

 

[dlanod]

But doesn't due process evolve to the stipulations and demands of the current admin? I would've though that any amendments reflects a potential change in a plastic stipulation that reflects current laws as governed by the ruling party.

Arguably no, due process is a concept that stands apart from political whims and desires. Practically in the US what is considered due process largely evolves from court rulings as it based on interpretation of that language used the Constitution.

 

[pulpdriver]

Arguably no, due process is a concept that stands apart from political whims and desires. Practically in the US what is considered due process largely evolves from court rulings as it based on interpretation of that language used the Constitution.

Sounds good on first read but doesn't the description "what is considered due process largely evolves from court rulings as it based on interpretation of that language used the Constitution" leave it open some for some horrendous manipulation?

 

[dlanod]

Sounds good on first read but doesn't the description "what is considered due process largely evolves from court rulings as it based on interpretation of that language used the Constitution" leave it open some for some horrendous manipulation?

Insomuch as appointing people to the Supreme Court leaves pretty much anything open for some horrendous manipulation, sure, because ultimately any particular abuses of due process will end up there. But due process would be the least of the concerns if the court is stacked to that degree for nefarious purposes.