View Topic

Nope, lol.

If you believe that politicians haven't contested court rulings before, I would like to tell you about a wonderful man named Andrew Jackson...

Yes, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on our nation's history that never should have happened. We would do well to remember past mistakes and not repeat them, rather than use them to justify ones in the present day.

As for other, more recent presidents, they generally will contest court rulings legally, but they don't go as far as to challenge the judges and court system itself.

Also, I must applaud you for copying your entire argument from an article on The Independent.

I don't know why anyone would read The Independent, the oversensationalized newspaper that it is, but the concerns expressed in my above post are common enough that I've heard people that aren't even remotely anti-Trump voicing them. You asked for an example of Trump discrediting Enlightmenment and democratic ideals, and I provided one.

Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no?

Nobody runs their own servers anymore... Even major websites pay for web hosting these days. Good internet is no longer a prerequisite for running a forum. In Wintermoot's case, I do believe he uses HostGator.

Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no?

  If West Virginia has any "major metropolitan areas" I can't name any of them

If you believe that politicians haven't contested court rulings before, I would like to tell you about a wonderful man named Andrew Jackson...

Yes, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on our nation's history that never should have happened. We would do well to remember past mistakes and not repeat them, rather than use them to justify ones in the present day.

As for other, more recent presidents, they generally will contest court rulings legally, but they don't go as far as to challenge the judges and court system itself.

Also, I must applaud you for copying your entire argument from an article on The Independent.

I don't know why anyone would read The Independent, the oversensationalized newspaper that it is, but the concerns expressed in my above post are common enough that I've heard people that aren't even remotely anti-Trump voicing them. You asked for an example of Trump discrediting Enlightmenment and democratic ideals, and I provided one.

Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no?

Nobody runs their own servers anymore... Even major websites pay for web hosting these days. Good internet is no longer a prerequisite for running a forum. In Wintermoot's case, I do believe he uses HostGator.

Trump, as a private citizen, is perfectly allowed to say and text whatever the hell he wants. He basically just called the judge stupid. He isn't trying to remove him or even totally ignore him, because he doesn't have to. The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

Nope, lol.

Charleston?

If you believe that politicians haven't contested court rulings before, I would like to tell you about a wonderful man named Andrew Jackson...

Yes, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on our nation's history that never should have happened. We would do well to remember past mistakes and not repeat them, rather than use them to justify ones in the present day.

As for other, more recent presidents, they generally will contest court rulings legally, but they don't go as far as to challenge the judges and court system itself.

Also, I must applaud you for copying your entire argument from an article on The Independent.

I don't know why anyone would read The Independent, the oversensationalized newspaper that it is, but the concerns expressed in my above post are common enough that I've heard people that aren't even remotely anti-Trump voicing them. You asked for an example of Trump discrediting Enlightmenment and democratic ideals, and I provided one.

Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no?

Nobody runs their own servers anymore... Even major websites pay for web hosting these days. Good internet is no longer a prerequisite for running a forum. In Wintermoot's case, I do believe he uses HostGator.

Trump, as a private citizen, is perfectly allowed to say and text whatever the hell he wants. He basically just called the judge stupid. He isn't trying to remove him or even totally ignore him, because he doesn't have to. The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

The man is no longer a private citizen. He is the President of the country.  The statement in question came from his personal Twitter account, but it was retweeted by the @POTUS account. The words that flow forth from his mouth like such a landslide of hot garbage carry real meaning and have connotations, intended or not. Trump was angry and throwing a tantrum as he does when he doesn't get his way, but that is no excuse for demeaning a real-life, totally-not-fake, 100% juice, not from concentrate JUDGE.

The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

What about checks and balances?

If you believe that politicians haven't contested court rulings before, I would like to tell you about a wonderful man named Andrew Jackson...

Yes, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on our nation's history that never should have happened. We would do well to remember past mistakes and not repeat them, rather than use them to justify ones in the present day.

As for other, more recent presidents, they generally will contest court rulings legally, but they don't go as far as to challenge the judges and court system itself.

Also, I must applaud you for copying your entire argument from an article on The Independent.

I don't know why anyone would read The Independent, the oversensationalized newspaper that it is, but the concerns expressed in my above post are common enough that I've heard people that aren't even remotely anti-Trump voicing them. You asked for an example of Trump discrediting Enlightmenment and democratic ideals, and I provided one.

Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no?

Nobody runs their own servers anymore... Even major websites pay for web hosting these days. Good internet is no longer a prerequisite for running a forum. In Wintermoot's case, I do believe he uses HostGator.

Trump, as a private citizen, is perfectly allowed to say and text whatever the hell he wants. He basically just called the judge stupid. He isn't trying to remove him or even totally ignore him, because he doesn't have to. The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

Except Trump is not a private citizen. He's the President of the United States. Allow me to give you an example of why this is important.

Boeing stocks tanked after Trump wrote a tweet claiming he would cancel Boeing contracts. One of the most important American businesses took a dive because of that. They did not tank because he was some shoddy excuse of a businessman, not because he is a birther, not even because he was a candidate but because he's the goddamned President and his word can literally be law. And if your upset, if you claim that we have no right to expect this from him, that he still is just a private citizen, I will remind you of one important fact:

HE WANTED THE FUCKING JOB.

Trump is your representative on the world stage. Not mine. Yours. You should care about how he makes your country, and by extension you, look. And the image being presented is hardly a positive one.

Oh, and another thing, argue politics all you want but if you are going to launch a personal attack against someone I consider my friend you would do well to do the basic minimum amount of research.

The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

What about checks and balances?

How cute—expecting checks and balances with an authoritarian premier!   

(But seriously it's not funny... )

The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

What about checks and balances?

How cute—expecting checks and balances with an authoritarian premier!   

(But seriously it's not funny... )

Really kind of sad(!) that THIS, of all things (checks and balances), is what Trump chooses to attack - a national institution that there has really not been much discussion about for over 150 years.

It's as if he had declared the sky was whatever color he wanted, and it's only blue because that's what color he likes today.

The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

I hate to join the dogpile here, because I'm sure that from Justinian's perspective it must look like everyone's ganging up on him.
So I'll just say that that's kind of a worrisome statement, that it doesn't much concern you that the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be independent, will instead be in the pocket of the president.
I should hope that any judge he appoints will value the Constitution, and the rule of law, over any perceived notions that his and the president's goals coincide, even if those goals very well do coincide, simply because law is what it is, and not what you want it to be, and any judge worth his salt should recognize that.
There are ways to interpret laws any which way, but should Trump genuinely engage in unconstitutional activity, I'm reasonably certain that the judiciary would be willing to stop him, 'in his pocket' or not - simply because what's he going to do, fire them? Not unless he wants to be widely compared to Joffrey Baratheon kicking out Barristan Selmy (tangent: finally, a Game of Thrones reference that is actually fucking helpful).

It's as if he had declared the sky was whatever color he wanted, and it's only blue because that's what color he likes today.

The sky looks blue because we want it to.
I don't want to detract from your point or anything; it's just those words just reminded me of Transistor.

If you believe that politicians haven't contested court rulings before, I would like to tell you about a wonderful man named Andrew Jackson...

Yes, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on our nation's history that never should have happened. We would do well to remember past mistakes and not repeat them, rather than use them to justify ones in the present day.

As for other, more recent presidents, they generally will contest court rulings legally, but they don't go as far as to challenge the judges and court system itself.

Also, I must applaud you for copying your entire argument from an article on The Independent.

I don't know why anyone would read The Independent, the oversensationalized newspaper that it is, but the concerns expressed in my above post are common enough that I've heard people that aren't even remotely anti-Trump voicing them. You asked for an example of Trump discrediting Enlightmenment and democratic ideals, and I provided one.

Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no?

Nobody runs their own servers anymore... Even major websites pay for web hosting these days. Good internet is no longer a prerequisite for running a forum. In Wintermoot's case, I do believe he uses HostGator.

Trump, as a private citizen, is perfectly allowed to say and text whatever the hell he wants. He basically just called the judge stupid. He isn't trying to remove him or even totally ignore him, because he doesn't have to. The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

Except Trump is not a private citizen. He's the President of the United States. Allow me to give you an example of why this is important.

Boeing stocks tanked after Trump wrote a tweet claiming he would cancel Boeing contracts. One of the most important American businesses took a dive because of that. They did not tank because he was some shoddy excuse of a businessman, not because he is a birther, not even because he was a candidate but because he's the goddamned President and his word can literally be law. And if your upset, if you claim that we have no right to expect this from him, that he still is just a private citizen, I will remind you of one important fact:

HE WANTED THE FUCKING JOB.

Trump is your representative on the world stage. Not mine. Yours. You should care about how he makes your country, and by extension you, look. And the image being presented is hardly a positive one.

Oh, and another thing, argue politics all you want but if you are going to launch a personal attack against someone I consider my friend you would do well to do the basic minimum amount of research.

You see there's your problem.
I don't give a fuck what foreigners think of my country, and neither does he.
America's position has been secure since 1945, and nothing will ever change that.
And personal attacks? You act like I shit in moot's cereal and crammed it down his throat. I wrongly guessed where he lived, because nearly all of us do live in the place I described.

The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

What about checks and balances?

The Republicans will appoint a new justice within the month. Said person will obviously be more conservative leaning, and putting the court into a conservative majority. Thus, when it comes down to it, an appeal of the strikedown to the supreme court by Trump would almost certaintly lead to the reinstatement of the executive order.

The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.

I hate to join the dogpile here, because I'm sure that from Justinian's perspective it must look like everyone's ganging up on him.
So I'll just say that that's kind of a worrisome statement, that it doesn't much concern you that the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be independent, will instead be in the pocket of the president.
I should hope that any judge he appoints will value the Constitution, and the rule of law, over any perceived notions that his and the president's goals coincide, even if those goals very well do coincide, simply because law is what it is, and not what you want it to be, and any judge worth his salt should recognize that.
There are ways to interpret laws any which way, but should Trump genuinely engage in unconstitutional activity, I'm reasonably certain that the judiciary would be willing to stop him, 'in his pocket' or not - simply because what's he going to do, fire them? Not unless he wants to be widely compared to Joffrey Baratheon kicking out Barristan Selmy (tangent: finally, a Game of Thrones reference that is actually fucking helpful).

It's as if he had declared the sky was whatever color he wanted, and it's only blue because that's what color he likes today.

The sky looks blue because we want it to.
I don't want to detract from your point or anything; it's just those words just reminded me of Transistor.

Don't worry, I knew what I was getting into from the beginning. I am and always have been the forums only Trump supporter and it's quite a comfortable niche, believe me.
But I wouldn't be worried about the politicization of the supreme court because it has been this way for a long time and we have yet to live in a tyrannical hell hole. Even then, sentiments among justices overlap a lot, and you might see otherwise conservative judges be liberal on certain issues, etc.
Regardless of that, I don't believe the suspension of the immigration restriction will hold up in the supreme court because it violates no laws. It bans immigration from just 7 countries that were already distrusted by the US government.

You see there's your problem.
I don't give a fuck what foreigners think of my country, and neither does he.
America's position has been secure since 1945, and nothing will ever change that.
And personal attacks? You act like I shit in moot's cereal and crammed it down his throat. I wrongly guessed where he lived, because nearly all of us do live in the place I described.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. We don't need your country, we dont need America, surely you realize this? And you should give a fuck what foreigners think of your country because your county is a mercantile nation. You trade with other countries. Your entire existence is based on what others think of you and if others think America is an unreliable liability you will be treated as such and you will lose the ensuing trade wars.

And I would just like to point out that the only thing America has to bargain with is military might. Economic might? You own the rest of the world far more than we owe you. And dont make me laugh at the pitifully low value of your precious currency. Business might? Very few corporations are American and fewer still produce exclusively in America. Personal might? America has just shown itself to be an untrustworthy ally. Do you really think anyone will ever take America or Americans at their word ever again?

And the good old complacency argument. "We've been secure for years." Not anymore, your not. And wasn't it you who was previously going on about how the old European empires crumbled and fell? They had a far stronger foundation than America has and they still fell.

And Trump just criticized America and refused to criticize Russia. Yup, America first.