Re: POTUS-DONALD TRUMP-Already making America Great Again!
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:50 pm
The SHS thing is like that time a Baker refused to serve Biden in 2012 and Paul Ryan invited him to a campaign rally!
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
I think they are; or at least I don't know how to allocate blame any better than 50-50. I think you're being naive if you think this all started with Trump - may be you don't think that. It has been brewing for years.penguin wrote:The two sides are not equally weighted as far as blame goes. If it were a boxing match we'd be putting up Willie Pep against Butterbean.Santa wrote: It is totally death by 1000 cuts, from both sides, and it seems to have its own momentum now. There is very little good faith to be seen.
I don't even know who Stephen Miller is. And for that reason I don't care about him (her?).
I certainly don't think that it started with Trump, or that all blame lies on one side. However I do believe it is unequal, and while there are valid criticisms to be laid at the door of the left for their failures over the last god knows how many years, it's the equivalent to me of criticising the homeowner who left their door wide open, rather than the burglar who is stealing all their stuff and taking a sh*t in the living room. By all means point out that locking doors is a good idea, but could we please stop the defecating criminal.Santa wrote:I think they are; or at least I don't know how to allocate blame any better than 50-50. I think you're being naive if you think this all started with Trump - may be you don't think that. It has been brewing for years.penguin wrote:The two sides are not equally weighted as far as blame goes. If it were a boxing match we'd be putting up Willie Pep against Butterbean.Santa wrote: It is totally death by 1000 cuts, from both sides, and it seems to have its own momentum now. There is very little good faith to be seen.
I don't even know who Stephen Miller is. And for that reason I don't care about him (her?).
Well I think it's a bit stupid to complain that the sleeping lion has awoken when you've spent that last few years poking it with a stick.penguin wrote:I certainly don't think that it started with Trump, or that all blame lies on one side. However I do believe it is unequal, and while there are valid criticisms to be laid at the door of the left for their failures over the last god knows how many years, it's the equivalent to me of criticising the homeowner who left their door wide open, rather than the burglar who is stealing all their stuff and taking a sh*t in the living room. By all means point out that locking doors is a good idea, but could we please stop the defecating criminal.Santa wrote:I think they are; or at least I don't know how to allocate blame any better than 50-50. I think you're being naive if you think this all started with Trump - may be you don't think that. It has been brewing for years.penguin wrote:The two sides are not equally weighted as far as blame goes. If it were a boxing match we'd be putting up Willie Pep against Butterbean.Santa wrote: It is totally death by 1000 cuts, from both sides, and it seems to have its own momentum now. There is very little good faith to be seen.
I don't even know who Stephen Miller is. And for that reason I don't care about him (her?).
Edit: and there's stuff in there about the treatment of Trump's tweets.The Supreme Court has upheld President Trump's travel ban case on Tuesday by a 5-4 vote, saying in its opinion that the order is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority."
I wonder how this makes america great againBowens wrote:Indian Motorcyle dealers already doing cash trade-in bonuses for Harley riders. HD is going down.
No. I don't think we will agree.Santa wrote: Well I think it's a bit stupid to complain that the sleeping lion has awoken when you've spent that last few years poking it with a stick.
Unusually we are not going to agree on this. And blame is probably not the most interesting points anyway. They are a) where is this going and b) can a bad end be averted.
Edit: Actually I take that back because there is a discussion to be had here. On what basis do you aportion most of the blame to the right?
OK. I think it goes deeper than the political sphere so given that we're using different frames we're definitely not going to agree.penguin wrote:No. I don't think we will agree.Santa wrote: Well I think it's a bit stupid to complain that the sleeping lion has awoken when you've spent that last few years poking it with a stick.
Unusually we are not going to agree on this. And blame is probably not the most interesting points anyway. They are a) where is this going and b) can a bad end be averted.
Edit: Actually I take that back because there is a discussion to be had here. On what basis do you aportion most of the blame to the right?
Disagreeing is perfectly natural, the reason I blame the right more than the left is because they have taken politics into a pretty dirty place. From Newt Gingrich in the 90s setting out words to use to describe democrats (destructive thugs, radicals) to Cocaine Mitch basically shutting down any form of compromise with Obama, it has been the right who have sought to demonise their opponents and polarise. It worked - they got Trump.
You can probably cherry pick some examples where democrats hurl insults at republicans (I'm sure the Bush era will have some good examples) but it was never the core strategy. They always had policies, whether you agreed with them or not. The machinery that the republicans built up to support the narrative of dangerous, treacherous, un-american democrats became the core of the party. Their policies are to not be the democrats, to not be Obama - they are defined by their opposition, so when they govern it is lacking coherence.
You will no doubt disagree with how I apportion blame, perhaps saying that this is pretty normal political fare and everyone does it...but that's how I view it, watching from an interested distance, and I don't think it's purely me being a liberal that ends with me at this conclusion.
Some conservative involvement in some aspects of it is true, particularly economic and military stuff. Other bits, like some of the cultural stuff have never really been accepted.Bowens wrote:Many conservatives are part of the neo- globalist project. Pretty much every republican before Trump not named Buchanan or Paul.
Depends if they are defined by behaviour or by tribe. The old authenticity argument.Seneca of the Night wrote:They weren't 'conservative'. They got seduced by purist economics and the lure of Wall Street bonuses in the wake of the Reagan-Thatcher era. I'd hope many of these people are going through a Bridge on the River Kwai moment right now.Santa wrote:Conservative involvement in some aspects of it is true, particularly economic and military stuff. Other bits, like some of the cultural stuff have never really been accepted.Bowens wrote:Many conservatives are part of the neo- globalist project. Pretty much every republican before Trump not named Buchanan or Paul.
Funnily enough, one of the most eloquent observers of this, and he describes his own 'reverse-damascene' moment quite well, is the Mooch. But people have been peeling away from the increasingly insane world view of the Economist for some time now.
They're gonna take off after this. Built in Minnesota and Iowa.Bowens wrote:Indian Motorcyle dealers already doing cash trade-in bonuses for Harley riders. HD is going down.
Yeah, US misadventures in foreign policy all started with the Clintons. They'd been standoffish since from before WW2, I mean everyone knows they just got sucked into that oou got your own little version of history.Seneca of the Night wrote:And the neo-conservatives pulled a trick worthy of Satan in hijacking foreign policy and polluting the brains of schmucks like Tony Blair with 'liberal interventionism' . . . They are vampires, and it would be far too early to predict their demise yet. Though the younger generation like Max Boot are a PR disaster.
Christian missionaries?Santa wrote:Some conservative involvement in some aspects of it is true, particularly economic and military stuff. Other bits, like some of the cultural stuff have never really been accepted.Bowens wrote:Many conservatives are part of the neo- globalist project. Pretty much every republican before Trump not named Buchanan or Paul.
I'll guess that one of them is to fix the foreign policy failures of Obama \ Clinton which has contributed to the refugee crisis in North Africa and Syria as well as their appeasement of Putin in the Crimea.flaggETERNAL wrote:When Trumpistas say they want to make America great again, when exactly are they talking about? I don't think he's ever been asked that question.
BetterByBoat wrote:
I'll guess that one of them is to fix the foreign policy failures of Obama \ Clinton which has contributed to the refugee crisis in North Africa and Syria as well as their appeasement of Putin in the Crimea.
When the hideousnos of Trump is your legacy; you know you've been an abject failure.
There's considerable judicial weight in the form of multiple Supreme Court rulings that say the constitution does apply to non citizens in the US, regardless of how they got there. Ironically, it doesn't apply to non US citizens at legal ports as they're legally not considered 'in' the US.zt1903 wrote:The constitution applies to those persons on American soil, deportable aliens (the correct legal term) caught at the border are not regarded as on American soil and therefore the constitutional protections don’t apply.Jay Cee Gee wrote:zt1903 wrote:Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Oh, nothing major...just due process and separation of powers. No biggie.
Remind me what constitutional rights non-citizens have in this situation?.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note - 'person', not citizen.
Not saying that the sentiment expressed is right btw, just that it’s not a constitutional issue.
You are both saying the same thing.Jay Cee Gee wrote:There's considerable judicial weight in the form of multiple Supreme Court rulings that say the constitution does apply to non citizens in the US, regardless of how they got there. Ironically, it doesn't apply to non US citizens at legal ports as they're legally not considered 'in' the US.zt1903 wrote:The constitution applies to those persons on American soil, deportable aliens (the correct legal term) caught at the border are not regarded as on American soil and therefore the constitutional protections don’t apply.Jay Cee Gee wrote:zt1903 wrote:Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Oh, nothing major...just due process and separation of powers. No biggie.
Remind me what constitutional rights non-citizens have in this situation?.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note - 'person', not citizen.
Not saying that the sentiment expressed is right btw, just that it’s not a constitutional issue.
Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not quite. Entry points are on US soil but not 'in' the US for the purposes of the application of constitutional rights and therefore due process.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
I already said it doesn't apply to airports etc, but the people Trump is thinking of denying due process aren't coming in at entry points though, are they?Santa wrote:Not quite. Entry points are on US soil but not 'in' the US for the purposes of the application of constitutional rights and therefore due process.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
No idea. Personally I think he's trolling a bit and playing with the facts for effect and he should not be taken literally on this due process thing. He has thus far worked squarely within the balance of powers system. There's no real reason, other than hysteria, to think he won't keep doing so.Jay Cee Gee wrote:I already said it doesn't apply to airports etc, but the people Trump is thinking of denying due process aren't coming in at entry points though, are they?Santa wrote:Not quite. Entry points are on US soil but not 'in' the US for the purposes of the application of constitutional rights and therefore due process.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
Siri, what is the most historically ignorant thing Mike Pence could say while in Latin America?
Tough words from VP Pence in Brasilia today: He told Latin American nations: "Just as the United States Respects Your Borders and Your Sovereignty, We Insist That You Respect Ours
https://twitter.com/vmsalama/status/1011687153191960576Nicaragua (1912-1933)
Mexico (1914)
Haiti (1915-1934)
Dominican Republic (1916-1924)
Guatemala (1954)
Chile (1973)
Panama (1989)
cc: @VP
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Econom ... 265046.eceWhile India had earlier this month written to the World Trade Organisation informing it of its decision to impose tariffs on U.S. imports amounting to $240 million, the actual notification set the implementation date as August 4. In addition, the notification left out the proposed increased tariffs on high-capacity motorcycles, such as those manufactured by Harley Davidson, tariffs on which were a sore point highlighted by U.S. President Donald Trump.
There’s something about being caught within 100 miles of the border. I think there was specific legislation.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
That's the area where border officers have extended powers. It's not the same thing.zt1903 wrote:There’s something about being caught within 100 miles of the border. I think there was specific legislation.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
There’s a process of expedited removal that applies to anyone picked up within 100 miles and they can be deported without going in front of a judge. One could argue, I guess, that this process is due process.Santa wrote:That's the area where border officers have extended powers. It's not the same thing.zt1903 wrote:There’s something about being caught within 100 miles of the border. I think there was specific legislation.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
Past due some might say.zt1903 wrote:There’s a process of expedited removal that applies to anyone picked up within 100 miles and they can be deported without going in front of a judge. One could argue, I guess, that this process is due process.Santa wrote:That's the area where border officers have extended powers. It's not the same thing.zt1903 wrote:There’s something about being caught within 100 miles of the border. I think there was specific legislation.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
Jesus fucking Christ.Santa wrote:No idea. Personally I think he's trolling a bit and playing with the facts for effect and he should not be taken literally on this due process thing. He has thus far worked squarely within the balance of powers system. There's no real reason, other than hysteria, to think he won't keep doing so.Jay Cee Gee wrote:I already said it doesn't apply to airports etc, but the people Trump is thinking of denying due process aren't coming in at entry points though, are they?Santa wrote:Not quite. Entry points are on US soil but not 'in' the US for the purposes of the application of constitutional rights and therefore due process.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Santa wrote: You are both saying the same thing.
Not really. "Caught at the border" doesn't really mean anything if you think about it - Either they're on one side or the other and if they're on the US side, the constitution applies. If they're on the other side, they haven't actually done anything and the US has no jurisdiction anyway.
Blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment for a year so that Trump could get a Republican appointment in has paid dividends, then.Mr Mike wrote:Supreme Court 5-4 on Travel Ban
Now that’s a question one does not hear every day.Seneca of the Night wrote:Funny:
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fint ... 5?mode=amp
What's Irish gaelic for golem?
The young in one another’s armsSeneca of the Night wrote:Interesting result:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 18661.html
No party for white men.
4071 wrote:Blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment for a year so that Trump could get a Republican appointment in has paid dividends, then.Mr Mike wrote:Supreme Court 5-4 on Travel Ban