Post by: Red Mones on February 02, 2017, 11:53:23 PM
Edit: Ok, so just in case some of you get on my ass about it, Abortion, gay marriage, and law enforcement are most definitely not the only important issues out there, but a lot of people voted for Trump just so he can put someone on the court to overturn Roe v Wade (*cough* evangelicals *cough*) so that's why I brought those up specifically.
Post by: Gerrick on February 03, 2017, 12:40:44 AM
Post by: Red Mones on February 03, 2017, 01:05:12 AM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 03, 2017, 02:29:19 AM
Post by: NyghtOwl on February 03, 2017, 02:41:03 AM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 03, 2017, 02:42:34 AM
Post by: NyghtOwl on February 03, 2017, 02:54:38 AM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 03, 2017, 02:58:01 AM
Post by: NyghtOwl on February 03, 2017, 03:01:50 AM
Post by: Red Mones on February 03, 2017, 03:10:43 AM
Post by: NyghtOwl on February 03, 2017, 03:37:31 AM
Post by: taulover on February 03, 2017, 04:40:58 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/senate-democrats-2018-midterms-231516
Post by: NyghtOwl on February 03, 2017, 04:54:42 AM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 03, 2017, 05:27:25 AM
Traditionally, midterm elections are very good for the opposition party. And besides, it was supposed to be impossible for Republicans to maintain control of the Senate last election cause they were defending so many seats in Obama states.
And that doesn't take into account Trump himself or the infighting between establishment Republicans and tea-party Republicans. There may be a honeymoon for now between them all because they won, but if things start going wrong or Trump starts going too far for either group of Republicans the issues between them aren't far beneath the surface.
Post by: taulover on February 03, 2017, 07:04:49 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2018.png/640px-United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2018.png)
To gain 50% in the Senate, the Dems have to not only take Arizona (a traditionally red state) and Nevada (where the incumbent is an early favorite to win reelection (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/03/the-senate-map-just-cant-get-much-better-for-republicans-in-2018/)), but also keep every single one of their current seats, many of which are in red/swing states. Even then, we have VP Mike Pence to break the tie. The odds are simply stacked against them.
Post by: Wintermoot on February 03, 2017, 05:00:33 PM
Post by: taulover on February 03, 2017, 06:48:55 PM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 05, 2017, 04:46:09 AM
And there's always the House to sweep control of, too. :P
Post by: taulover on February 05, 2017, 07:26:14 AM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513388284/thanks-obama-trump-administration-uses-obamas-record-as-defense (heard this this morning)
And I completely agree with you on the House. It's just that with the Senate, even if something disastrous happens to the Republicans, the deeply red states up for reelection are more likely than not going to fall in line. As you said:
Most of the states Democrats are defending are at least states they have a decent chance of winning atAnd with the electoral map as it stands, the Dems need more than just a "decent chance" at "most" states. They need to defend all of their states, and make inroads into Republican ones.
I think the political atmosphere certainly will shift back in favor of the Democrats. But with the Senate itself, it'll take nothing short of a miracle to gain a majority. Which isn't to say it isn't possible, but I'm certainly not counting on it or remaining particularly hopeful.
And as for the polls: FiveThirtyEight was giving Clinton a ~70% chance of winning. All that means is that we're living in the 30% of possible worlds where Trump won.
Post by: PB on February 05, 2017, 03:40:07 PM
I'd hate to see them stoop to that level though.
An interesting opinion that I heard recently is that it's important to remember that this is not an ordinary political situation anymore, so responding to events in an ordinary or normal fashion has little to no value. Trump's cabinet picks have been mostly nihilistic billionaires like himself that openly hate the agency/department they've been picked to lead, which is strange enough on its own. Trump could have picked a much worse nominee, truly. However, one fairly reasonable action in an ocean of outlandish, half-baked spasms does not mean the opposition should slow down or let up at all, in my opinion. The Republican's outright refusal to consider Merrick Garland's nomination - which was not based on Mr. Garland's merits, remember, but solely on the fact that he was nominated in the final year of the Obama presidency - was an upheaval of democratic norms, and that's a two-way street. The Democrats, in my opinion, are under no obligation to behave in a "normal" way anymore, and I think many Democratic voters (read: protesters at airports, Trump properties around the world, etc.) would agree.
Post by: Arenado on February 05, 2017, 04:25:35 PM
What scares me the most about Donald Trump is Benito Mussolini. Benito Mussolini was not popular at first. He instituted very unpopular programs that people fought him on day after day after day. How did he win? He swamped them. He buried them in an avalanche of insane proposals. He browbeat them into submission and before long, no one dared oppose him. I hope to god we do not see a repeat.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 05, 2017, 04:50:16 PM
The problem is that the electoral map simply does not favor the Democrats:I don't think it's quite sunk in for some people how much of a thrashing democrats have been getting recently. Even if you don't necessarily like them, Trump's protectionist policies have filled a very profitable niche that has been missing in American politics since Reagan, and this cow isn't gonna run out of milk for a long time.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2018.png/640px-United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2018.png)
To gain 50% in the Senate, the Dems have to not only take Arizona (a traditionally red state) and Nevada (where the incumbent is an early favorite to win reelection (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/03/the-senate-map-just-cant-get-much-better-for-republicans-in-2018/)), but also keep every single one of their current seats, many of which are in red/swing states. Even then, we have VP Mike Pence to break the tie. The odds are simply stacked against them.
It is a special kind of insanity to remain calm and reasoned in the presence of fools.Ah, the good ol "le drumpf is a fascist" crap I've been hearing so much about. Trump isn't a fascist, he has yet to discredit the ideals of the Enlightenment or state that democracy doesn't work. By definition, fascists oppose the democratic system, and upon their election will actively destroy it. I have yet to see Trump reducing the powers of the Congress, so no, he isn't fucking Mussolini.
What scares me the most about Donald Trump is Benito Mussolini. Benito Mussolini was not popular at first. He instituted very unpopular programs that people fought him on day after day after day. How did he win? He swamped them. He buried them in an avalanche of insane proposals. He browbeat them into submission and before long, no one dared oppose him. I hope to god we do not see a repeat.
I'm actually inclined to be optimistic, and that's not even counting on any number of scenarios that could favour Democrats. Trump could completely implode or be impeached, establishment and tea party Republicans could erupt into all-out civil war again, the whole lot of them could overreach and alienate most of the country outside their base...they could actually demoralize their own base. I tend to think that the Republicans don't have anywhere to go but down at this point. They control the government and own what happens the next two years...no more blaming everything on Obama.Trump will be impeached when hell freezes over. The majority of Republicans absolutely would not destabilize a red executive branch, and they won't be losing the Senate anytime soon so say bye bye to the democrats initiating that. We had a guy who pardoned every war criminal in the country as president (A Johnson) and he wasn't impeached, I think a guy who pissed off some people with an immigration order and some rude comments won't be leaving anytime soon.
And there's always the House to sweep control of, too. :P
Everyone needs to stop wasting their breath on vain hopes. You tried that shit with the electoral college and it didn't work, Trump is here to stay. I would tell you to save your strength for the congressional elections but most of us live in solid blue urban districts anyway.
Post by: Arenado on February 05, 2017, 06:29:55 PM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 05, 2017, 06:37:07 PM
Post by: taulover on February 05, 2017, 10:21:36 PM
Ah, the good ol "le drumpf is a fascist" crap I've been hearing so much about. Trump isn't a fascist, he has yet to discredit the ideals of the Enlightenment or state that democracy doesn't work.North didn't call Trump a fascist, he merely said that Trump's tactics remind him of Mussolini's.
I do, however, think that Trump has done those two things you've mentioned. Let's take a look, for example, at these tweets from yesterday, part of a rant that seems to be continuing today:
Quote from: @realDonaldTrump (emphasis mine)
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827867311054974976
Quote from: @realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?By questioning the legitimacy of a federal judge and our nation's courts system, not only is Trump discrediting the Constitution's checks and balances, an implementation of Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu's separation of powers, but he is also challenging the process by which the federal judge James Robart was appointed by the democratically elected President Bush and unanimously approved by a democratically elected Senate.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827981079042805761
Post by: Red Mones on February 06, 2017, 05:47:54 PM
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 06, 2017, 06:58:04 PM
If you believe that politicians haven't contested court rulings before, I would like to tell you about a wonderful man named Andrew Jackson...Ah, the good ol "le drumpf is a fascist" crap I've been hearing so much about. Trump isn't a fascist, he has yet to discredit the ideals of the Enlightenment or state that democracy doesn't work.North didn't call Trump a fascist, he merely said that Trump's tactics remind him of Mussolini's.
I do, however, think that Trump has done those two things you've mentioned. Let's take a look, for example, at these tweets from yesterday, part of a rant that seems to be continuing today:Quote from: @realDonaldTrump (emphasis mine)The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827867311054974976Quote from: @realDonaldTrumpWhat is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?By questioning the legitimacy of a federal judge and our nation's courts system, not only is Trump discrediting the Constitution's checks and balances, an implementation of Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu's separation of powers, but he is also challenging the process by which the federal judge James Robart was appointed by the democratically elected President Bush and unanimously approved by a democratically elected Senate.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827981079042805761
Also, I must applaud you for copying your entire argument from an article on The Independent.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 06, 2017, 07:03:20 PM
It's been less than 1 month, Justinian. Give it time.I'd rather not waste my time waiting for something that won't happen.
If he loses the support of his base (those that supported him in the Republican primaries) and continues to piss off Congressional Republicans, it's conceivable that they would push for him to resign or move for impeachment...I'm sure they'd rather deal with Mike Pence anyways, someone who is more in their own mold. I honestly think that's why Trump is doing all this brazen stuff that his base supports...he knows he owes nothing to any other group, including those Congressional Republicans, and he knows if he loses his base then he's kinda politically screwed.His position as a populist has secured his place, removing Trump now would be political suicide. Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no? In which case, your residence is in a democratic stronghold where almost no one voted for Trump, so you've been living in an echo chamber. Journey out beyond the city limits and you will see Trump is not so universally reviled as you think. Also, Mike Pence? Are you seriously saying you want Mike "A little shock kills the love of cock" Pence? You of all people should know how bad that would be.
Post by: Wintermoot on February 06, 2017, 07:17:09 PM
His position as a populist has secured his place, removing Trump now would be political suicide. Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no? In which case, your residence is in a democratic stronghold where almost no one voted for Trump, so you've been living in an echo chamber. Journey out beyond the city limits and you will see Trump is not so universally reviled as you think. Also, Mike Pence? Are you seriously saying you want Mike "A little shock kills the love of cock" Pence? You of all people should know how bad that would be.Actually, I live in southern West Virginia, in a county where Trump got 74% of the vote. When you stereotype like that you usually end up wrong. :P
Also, I was stating what I believe Congressional Republicans probably would prefer, not me in particular.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 06, 2017, 09:40:52 PM
Huntington?His position as a populist has secured his place, removing Trump now would be political suicide. Given that you have good enough internet to run a forum I suspect you live in a major metropolitan area, no? In which case, your residence is in a democratic stronghold where almost no one voted for Trump, so you've been living in an echo chamber. Journey out beyond the city limits and you will see Trump is not so universally reviled as you think. Also, Mike Pence? Are you seriously saying you want Mike "A little shock kills the love of cock" Pence? You of all people should know how bad that would be.Actually, I live in southern West Virginia, in a county where Trump got 74% of the vote. When you stereotype like that you usually end up wrong. :P
Also, I was stating what I believe Congressional Republicans probably would prefer, not me in particular.
Post by: Wintermoot on February 06, 2017, 10:24:48 PM
Post by: taulover on February 06, 2017, 10:46:09 PM
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.
Post by: BraveSirRobin on February 06, 2017, 10:58:49 PM
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 :P
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 06, 2017, 11:56:33 PM
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.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.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 06, 2017, 11:57:31 PM
Nope, lol.Charleston?
Post by: PB on February 07, 2017, 12:16:00 AM
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.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.
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.
Post by: Red Mones on February 07, 2017, 12:23:48 AM
The Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.What about checks and balances?
Post by: Arenado on February 07, 2017, 12:57:08 AM
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.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.
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.
Post by: BraveSirRobin on February 07, 2017, 12:57:17 AM
How cute—expecting checks and balances with an authoritarian premier! :PThe Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.What about checks and balances?
(But seriously it's not funny... :'( )
Post by: PB on February 07, 2017, 01:21:51 AM
How cute—expecting checks and balances with an authoritarian premier! :PThe Supreme Court will be in his pocket soon enough and he can resume everything.What about checks and balances?
(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.
Post by: Doc on February 07, 2017, 01:51:48 AM
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. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkz5Buar3eQ)
I don't want to detract from your point or anything; it's just those words just reminded me of Transistor.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 07, 2017, 01:52:53 AM
You see there's your problem.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.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.
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.
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 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.What about checks and balances?
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 07, 2017, 01:58:48 AM
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.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. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkz5Buar3eQ)
I don't want to detract from your point or anything; it's just those words just reminded me of Transistor.
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.
Post by: Arenado on February 07, 2017, 02:31:05 AM
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.
Post by: Arenado on February 07, 2017, 02:33:09 AM
Post by: Wintermoot on February 07, 2017, 02:34:14 AM
And that's the thing...you have two factions that decry when the other faction is in power and using all these powers, but are just fine when their own faction is doing so. The same Republicans that complained about Obama's use of executive orders are just fine with Trump using them, while the same Democrats that found the Republican's obstructionism against Obama appalling are preparing to use the same tactics against Trump. The spirit of compromise and empathy that this country relied on for two centuries has disappeared, replaced with a tribalism and factionalism that demands that their side dominate the other as if they were enemies at war instead of fellow countrymen.
Trump isn't the source of the problem, he's merely a symptom and perhaps an escalation of it. George Washington's warnings against political parties and factionalism fell on deaf ears, and the results of where we're going will be our own undoing. Our position will not be secure forever at this rate...while the Western democracies bicker and squabble, China is making all the right investments to make this their century, in much the same way our investments in industry and infrastructure made the 20th Century the American Century. Meanwhile, in my opinion, the American future looks bleak...a downward spiral of reversal and escalation. As it is, one in five Americans want their state to succeed from the Union...
Post by: Red Mones on February 07, 2017, 03:49:46 AM
And Trump just criticized America and refused to criticize Russia. Yup, America first.I like North. He tells it like it is.
Post by: Arenado on February 07, 2017, 06:20:21 AM
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 07, 2017, 11:13:55 AM
Kek
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.
Tell me that when the EU isn't falling apart.
While yes, we do get much of what we need from other countries, it sure as hell isn't from Europe. No, we have our goods manufactured by third world shitholes, easily replaced shitholes that are lining up to suck off the first western company they see.
Post by: Arenado on February 07, 2017, 12:18:59 PM
If you truly believe what you say, you are reprehensible. That you would so casually speak about other human beings suffering like that is disturbing but not suprising. Those are people. People. Not cattle.
If, and I find this more likely, you are a troll, well....same thing.
Either way Im done talking to you. About anything. Ever.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 07, 2017, 02:40:17 PM
I dont say this lightly. I dont like having to say it but its true.Their governments see them as cattle. American companies see them as cattle. They are treated as cattle. You can deny the disgusting reality, but it will still remain. The only "humanitarian" hope for cheap manufacturing is automation, which would simply see those jobs move back to the western world where the technicians are, and many of the old outsourcing targets will fall back into complete destitution. There is no hope for those who have not already begun their ascension to economic independence.
If you truly believe what you say, you are reprehensible. That you would so casually speak about other human beings suffering like that is disturbing but not suprising. Those are people. People. Not cattle.
If, and I find this more likely, you are a troll, well....same thing.
Either way Im done talking to you. About anything. Ever.
Post by: Arenado on February 07, 2017, 02:43:47 PM
Im done talking with you.
Post by: Justinian Ezkantion on February 07, 2017, 03:15:23 PM
But you said it. Not Trump. Not corporate America. You.I won't sugar coat the truth for you.
Im done talking with you.
Fine by me, though I'm sure we'll meet again when something else makes you illogically irate.
Post by: Wintermoot on February 07, 2017, 03:51:31 PM
I dont say this lightly. I dont like having to say it but its true.
If you truly believe what you say, you are reprehensible. That you would so casually speak about other human beings suffering like that is disturbing but not suprising. Those are people. People. Not cattle.
If, and I find this more likely, you are a troll, well....same thing.
Either way Im done talking to you. About anything. Ever.
I won't sugar coat the truth for you.Very close to flaming here...knock it off, both of you.
Fine by me, though I'm sure we'll meet again when something else makes you illogically irate.
Post by: BraveSirRobin on February 07, 2017, 04:33:02 PM
Puppy Break!!
Post by: taulover on February 07, 2017, 04:48:52 PM
Post by: Doc on February 07, 2017, 06:13:42 PM
Where nobody needs to worry about consequences apart from losing a couple of internet points, and gets all the dopamine rush of getting into a real fight, all because our brain chemistry can't tell the difference between fighting someone 5000 miles away with words and fighting someone two feet away with a rock.
And people wonder why comments sections are such great sources of irrational rage (I glance through them, especially Polandball ones, to wake up when I'm falling asleep in class).
Post by: taulover on February 07, 2017, 06:44:47 PM
And people wonder why comments sections are such great sources of irrational rage (I glance through them, especially Polandball ones, to wake up when I'm falling asleep in class).Polandball? I've found the subreddit to be rather civil... In fact it has some of the highest quality standards I've ever seen on the internet.
Post by: Doc on February 07, 2017, 06:56:24 PM
Post by: taulover on February 07, 2017, 07:05:00 PM
The subreddit? Sure, probably. I just look at the Facebook page, which is filled with 'ARGENTINA IS WHIIIIIITE' and 'turkroaches' and all other kinds of at-this-point well-ingrained jokes, which always spawn an amusing number of people trying to shovel food down the trolls' throats.You should check out /r/polandball sometime. It's nice for a change to be in a place where arguments are actually banned and comics are required to be funny/well-drawn.
Post by: Chanku on February 08, 2017, 12:02:52 AM
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.A suspension of the Executive Order won't be heard by the Supreme Court, if they even grant it Certiorari (which is somewhat unlikely in the first place, as only a small fraction of the cases that are appealed are ever granted Certiorari.), however an appeal of a lawsuit which either struck down or upheld the order as legal.
What is currently going on is that there was a request for the enforcement of the order to be halted until the suit completes. At least to my research.
Now if it does make it to the Supreme Court they could rule that the case itself was initially filed incorrectly or a court lacked jurisdiction, and then either remand the case or dismiss the case. This wouldn't technically settle the matter, for the most part (at least, as far as I know).
This is just a small thing, but it was bugging me.
Post by: PB on February 09, 2017, 12:02:48 AM
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.A suspension of the Executive Order won't be heard by the Supreme Court, if they even grant it Certiorari (which is somewhat unlikely in the first place, as only a small fraction of the cases that are appealed are ever granted Certiorari.), however an appeal of a lawsuit which either struck down or upheld the order as legal.
What is currently going on is that there was a request for the enforcement of the order to be halted until the suit completes. At least to my research.
Now if it does make it to the Supreme Court they could rule that the case itself was initially filed incorrectly or a court lacked jurisdiction, and then either remand the case or dismiss the case. This wouldn't technically settle the matter, for the most part (at least, as far as I know).
This is just a small thing, but it was bugging me.
You know, the small details like this are more and more important now that "fake news" is a more serious and dangerous phenomenon. It's important to realize what ACTUALLY is involved in a federal court case, or this or that executive order, or a confirmation hearing. Thanks, Chanku.
Post by: Chanku on February 09, 2017, 04:52:44 AM
You know, the small details like this are more and more important now that "fake news" is a more serious and dangerous phenomenon. It's important to realize what ACTUALLY is involved in a federal court case, or this or that executive order, or a confirmation hearing. Thanks, Chanku.@PB: Oh, no problem. Nice to know someone liked my post. Personally I just prefer to try and have people understand that while they may disagree with it, there is a point to the actions of a court and there are certain things a court can or can not hear or do. It is important to have some grasp on that.
The only way the supreme court would ever heard a case involving a suspension of an executive order is if a suit made its way to the Supreme Court, and that suit was over if the court has the jurisdiction to do so. This is highly unlikely as the court would more than likely rule that the suspension is legal.
In fact the ability to issue an emergency injunction and to get a stay against something like this is important. (Note technically the 'suspension' is actually an injunction against the order's enforcement. Essentially it directs everyone who is to enforce it to not enforce either whole or a part of the order, dependent upon the request granted. This is because an injunction is against a person, while a stay is against a court.) The ability for these to be enforced is important as it allows the court to prevent harm due to a law or action until a suit's completion. For example let's say I get a law passed that says that Person A is forced to give up everything they own. Well they could sue and request an injunction against the enforcement orded and prevent its enforcement until the lawsuit is invariably completed, more than likely against the law. A stay is important because, let's say that a ruling says the law is illegal and it is appealed, the court can stay the ruling, which means that the law can not be struck down until the completion of the case (at least if I understand it, I may be incorrect here. So do not quote me on this). These measures exist to prevent, or migitate, harm caused to one of the parties. Keep in mind a court can do both stay a ruling and issue an injunction against the enforcement of something. Also emergency injunctions are typically used when there is an issue that can cause gross harm to one of the parties, generally that harm may be irrepariable. In this case, there was an injunction issued preventing the removal of people from the US pending the outcome, as returning anyone may cause irreparable or gross harm upon that person. If the order is upheld in the end, these people could be made to leave or be barred from Re-entrance. When a case comes before a judge, especially concerning the legality of laws, they aim to minimize harm suffered by the parties, and if there is potential for one party to face gross/irreparable harm then the court will usually act to prevent that. Now keep in mind i am not up to date with the court proceedings and the like, so this information may be incorrect or outdated.
Also order of stay or order of injunction is also generally public, so you can read the order related to any of these cases. I do suggest you read them so you can understand the Judge's rationale, as they usually contain the judge's reasoning for granting/issuing an order. Also please keep in mind thay I am not a lawyer nor am I your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer. I am not licensed to practice law in any country or subdivision thereof. Do not take my statements here as legal advice, but instead information to learn from. Since i am not a legal professional, I may have made mistakes and if I have please point them out, so I may correct them and migitate the spread of false and incorrect information.
EDIT: I also wish to add something. If the case would be dismissed due to improper filing or something similar, then it would more than likely be dismissed without prejudice, allowing the case to be refiled in a lower court. A ruling of this would vacate the rulings of lower courts on the case, unless it is refiled. Now a case can also be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the case can't be refiled or heard, and this would also technically vacate the lower rulings. The vacation would occur because the lower courts shouldn't have heard it for one reason or another. Also the court could rule that they lack jurisdiction, which is VERY unlikely, but could also act as a vacation of lower rulings, due to the lower courts more than likely lacking the jurisdiction as well. Also keep in mind I am assuming that the Supreme Court acts similarly to the lower courts, and has these powers. They may very well not, and in which case I am essentially talking out of mt ass and please disregard this. If this is incorrect or flawed please let me know so I can fix it.
EDIT 2: Some fixes regarding wording and grammar. This is what I get for posting from my phone. Also keep in mind that the courts try to minimize harm to all parties, however gross/irreparable harm takes precedent. Also stays can be issued against the court that issued the stay. For example a court could stay a trial until the completion of another trial. This may be because the matters are related, and one outcome could affect the other, or render the suit moot in the first place. Again this information may be incorrect or outdated. Please let me know if it is and how it may be corrected so I may do so.