Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Trump Administration 2017-


1556 replies to this topic

#51
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,634 posts

Anyways, going back to the immigration order itself- the full text isn't up on the White House site yet, but I found it elsewhere and read it.

 

The sections that ban entry probably should've included a caveat for people that have already been admitted (current visa holders etc), and grandfathered them in.  I would expect that maybe we'll get clarification on that from the White House Counsel or maybe Trump himself.  Without the clarification, there is a potential issue- I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, but the legality of restricting people who are already green card holders is questionable.  There is a section in the order that allows Homeland Security to admit people on a case-by-case basis, so that section could be used as a loophole to admit the current green card holders.

 

People that haven't been granted entry yet, though (i.e. new immigrants), the order can restrict legally.

 

That's my initial read on it; immigration law isn't my strongest area of the law.. never practiced in that area, but that's my understanding (poe, others, feel free to chime in).

I am interested in what extreme vetting will be. Many of the new refugees that have gone through the long drawn out process of getting vetted and were expected to come to the states are now back in limbo. I know immigration lawyers and know that the process to get here legally is pretty "extreme". It's not like they come straight from Syria. It takes almost two years for an actual refugee to get here now.



#52
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
How we feeling about President Bannon?
  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#53
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
So here's my question for the "it's not so bad, relax" people (Carrie), or conservatives who aren't about to praise Trump, but at the same time insist that the sky isn't falling (Poe) or maybe even the ones that think that Trump is great (Tex)....

At what point will you realize that maybe this IS a major problem? I'm not trying to debate you on whether or not it is, because we're doing that in every other thread.

I'm just curious what would have to happen before you are willing to admit this administration is a true danger to the country.

Is it a known white nationalist replacing the joint chiefs of staff on the security council?

Will it be if Trump, in the face of his own military and courts refusing to follow his orders, creates his own loyal to him above all authority private army ala the SS or Mujahadin?

When Marshal Law is installed after a terrorist attack on American soil?

With so many historians pointing out that the language, acts, and behavior of this administration is identical to how dictatorships rose to power I have to think there is something. I don't want to think these things are true, but the evidence is leaning.

How far does it have to lean before you admit we're in trouble?

In fairness, I'll answer in the opposite direction. If after 6 months the panic and freaking out subsides, other world powers haven't embargoed trade and travel against us, and no sanction against the civil rights of any race, gender, or sexual orientation have been implemented, I'll admit to maybe being a little gaslit.
  • monkeygirl and El Chalupacabra +1 this

#54
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

I'm just curious what would have to happen before you are willing to admit this administration is a true danger to the country.


Well, it depends on the issue. Are we talking about immigration, or trade, or national security, or foreign policy, or what?

I'll answer for immigration. Honestly, I'm not sure any action on immigration would be unacceptable to me. We could even ban all immigration tomorrow, and I wouldn't have a major problem with it.

 

The reason being, I think I have a little more perspective and worldliness on this issue than most people in the US.  I lived in Switzerland for about 4 years, and I can tell you that the laws are so restrictive against immigrants, that while immigration isn't technically banned, it might as well be, since it's pretty much impossible to immigrate there unless you have like 4 science PhDs and speak fluent Swiss German.  It's the same case for several other countries, such as Denmark, Austria, and even Germany was that way (although they loosened up considerably for Syrian refugees in specific).  Other practices we take for granted here, like birthright citizenship, are unheard of across the world.  The only other developed country in the entire world that has it is Canada.  No country has it in Europe, not even the so-called socialist utopias that US liberals love to fawn over, like Norway.

 

So on immigration, since I have a more global and sophisticated perspective on this than most liberals that have no idea how the rest of the world does things, it's tough for me to conceive of something that would lead me to believe Trump is a danger to the country.  People here just have a bit of a warped perspective on the issue since the US has some of the most liberal laws in the world on immigration.

 

I suppose if the administration started revoking citizenship of people based on country of origin, or started deporting actual citizens based on their origin, that would be too much for me.


  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#55
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
How far does it have to lean before you admit we're in trouble?

 

We're in trouble.  Feel free to look up quotes from me in the general election thread about how a person like Trump should never get police powers, how he divides the country along racial lines, how he has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.  Check out my flat out stating that the vote should be overturned first by the Republican delegates and then by the electoral college out of sense of basic patriotic duty.  I'm rather hoping that he does something really stupid soon and gets his butt impeached before something blows up.  I haven't shaken the notion that he's a thin-skinned, petty, loudmouth who is acting out of his own warped and paranoid interests.

 

Here's the thing though.  I don't disagree with many of his policies.  So far, he's practically bent over backwards to be a conservative's wet dream.  Which puts me in a weird position.  On one hand, the man is scum.  On the other hand, he's going to do some things I approve of (including the basic underpinnings of the executive order, not including the green card stuff).  So how do you suggest I think about the things he actually does?  Do I reflexively oppose the things that I would enthusiastically approve of were it to come from the office of President Rubio, Cruz, or Walker?

 

So, I'm something of an independent that is having his cake and eating it too when it comes to Trump.  Hopefully that makes me a bit more detached and able to tell the difference between blind adherence to Trump and blind adherence to the Democrats when the sillyness starts.  But it also means I don't take ownership for the misdeads of the president that I'm reaping policy benefits from.

 

Like I said, it's weird, but I'm not sure how else to handle it beyond turning my back on the policies that make sense to me.


  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#56
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Thanks for answering!

#57
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,634 posts

HA! Trump fires his acting attorney general.



#58
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,697 posts

So here's my question for the "it's not so bad, relax" people (Carrie), or conservatives who aren't about to praise Trump, but at the same time insist that the sky isn't falling (Poe) or maybe even the ones that think that Trump is great (Tex)....At what point will you realize that maybe this IS a major problem? I'm not trying to debate you on whether or not it is, because we're doing that in every other thread.I'm just curious what would have to happen before you are willing to admit this administration is a true danger to the country.Is it a known white nationalist replacing the joint chiefs of staff on the security council?Will it be if Trump, in the face of his own military and courts refusing to follow his orders, creates his own loyal to him above all authority private army ala the SS or Mujahadin?When Marshal Law is installed after a terrorist attack on American soil?With so many historians pointing out that the language, acts, and behavior of this administration is identical to how dictatorships rose to power I have to think there is something. I don't want to think these things are true, but the evidence is leaning.How far does it have to lean before you admit we're in trouble?In fairness, I'll answer in the opposite direction. If after 6 months the panic and freaking out subsides, other world powers haven't embargoed trade and travel against us, and no sanction against the civil rights of any race, gender, or sexual orientation have been implemented, I'll admit to maybe being a little gaslit.

There is a problem. Trump's presidency in a little over a week has magnified the divide in this country. Here's the thing though, he is not the root cause of it. Partisan politics has gone rampant in this country. It's a tug of war that is only decided due to majority vote. Make no mistake, with the house and senate under Republican control that doesn't seem likely to change. It's so out of control, Sally Yates goes beyond her authority as acting Attorney Genral to tell the Justice Department to ignore a presidential order and gets herself fired. Wtf? Playing politics. This "War" with the media hasn't done anything to help matters either. As much as this immigration plan was poorly implemented, the media fanned the flames by blowing things out of proportion when it comes to the amount of people being held, who could or couldn't come into the country, and the actual legality of it. This has been happening since before Trump. The desire to have a good story, forgive the pun, trumps the actual facts of story. If there is a story.

I think some people are so against the idea of Trump that they will not give him a chance even if he does well. Like Trump, it seems that we as a people have become intent on being "right".
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#59
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
No, I get that. I've been saying YEARS that politics and the media are killing us by pushing things into two opposite extremes. We're seeing the result. The reaction to Trump is the backlash from the right after getting an OMG BLACK PRESIDENT. After Trump we'll end up with the liberal version. Probably Kanye. It's insane.

That said, right here, right now, things are happening that BOTH parties should be against.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#60
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
And Sally Yates wasn't out of line. Part of her job description is checking executive against constitutional law. She said it required scrutiny before it could enacted and the language needed refining-- which is what Trump's press release basically agreed to, OH SORRY I MEAN CARDS ARE COOL OF COURSE.

She was doing her job and was fired for it.
  • Ms. Spam and El Chalupacabra +1 this

#61
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,697 posts
She recommended the Justice department not to defend a lawful order. Sure she was within her right to do what she did, but such acts of defiance usually get you fired. Of course the justice department has been looking the other way for a while, when Obama tried rewriting immigration law.

Okay I'm going to have to look this up myself, because I'm hearing she had no authority to do what she did. So once again..politics.

#62
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
According to Wikipedia:

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his or her advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."

I'm sure people will be arguing constantly if she was out of line our not. I'd say if the highest seat of the American legal system questions the legality of something, it's worth listening to.

It also says the AG serves at the behest of the President, so I'm sure she wasn't shocked to be fired.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#63
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

The proper thing to do if you believe the administration's policies are wrong or immoral is resign.  There is honor in that.  Look up Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus from the Saturday Night Massacre.  What Yates chose to do instead can best be described as using her office to grandstand.

 

The cabinet officials have semi-independence in order to do their jobs, but they are ultimately subordinate to the president.



#64
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Was it grandstanding or showing the millions of people who feel doomed that there's people within the government willing to fight what they consider an administration that's a threat?

We live in crazy times.

#65
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,634 posts

She recommended the Justice department not to defend a lawful order. Sure she was within her right to do what she did, but such acts of defiance usually get you fired. Of course the justice department has been looking the other way for a while, when Obama tried rewriting immigration law.

Okay I'm going to have to look this up myself, because I'm hearing she had no authority to do what she did. So once again..politics.

I don't think you understand what Driver said. She reviewed it and found it not constitutional and poorly written. She said she would uphold the law in her own statement to her people if the Executive Order was re-written to reflect changes that are within the Constitution. She is part of our government meant to work within the law. When an EO is written that is within the law she will do her best to abide it. You see, you can't just make edicts. As Trump is learning, there are lawyers out there who are willing to go and take him to court and she has to have the right tools to say "Okay, I can defend Trump's EO because it has a lawful basis." Because while she works for Trump, the judges this **** is brought before don't and they will follow the letter of the law as it is stated in the Constitution. Hence, Trump's my bad. 

 

I can't tell kids "You will learn to do geometry proofs" and then drop the mic and run away. I've got to provide some frame work for them to learn how to do this. 

 

If the ex-AG wants, I could see a wrongful termiination suit but that I am not as sure about. Just a random thought during conference period I'm wasting on the internet.



#66
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
The AG can be removed by the President for any reason at any time-- that's part of the gig.

Whether she was out of line or not isn't as important of a debate as it is to highlight the fact that Trump and his team clearly have no idea how exactly the government works.

Security council appointments without Senate approval, not realizing the White House staff needed to be replaced, not understanding how checks and balances work.

He's just not qualified.

#67
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,634 posts

Angela Merkel had to explain the Geneva Conventions to him.

 

And his first military operation in Yemen resulted in a soldier's death.

 

I'd say the new administration is doing great!



#68
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,105 posts

Angela Merkel is not someone ANYBODY should be taking advice on immigration policy from.  One wonders what the framers of the Geneva Convention would have thought about what happened in Germany on new year's 2016?   Incidents like that, that are generally not being acknowledged in mainstream politics, are what's driving stuff like Brexit, Trump's victory, the very real likelihood of a Front Nationale victory in France and the rise of right wing nationalist populism more generally.  

 

That said, this "Muslim ban" is, as I've said elsewhere, just silly.  Muslim countries with far worse records for terrorism on American soil get a free pass, many of the refugees now in limbo were previously vetted and doubtlessly were found to pose no threat, and Americans face, on average, a greater terrorism danger from their own far right lunatic fringe than they do from Muslims anyway.  Trump's actions here come across to me as grandstanding and more about tossing red meat to the base than they are about improving safety vis-a-vis terrorism.  If anything, he's probably made it worse by coming across as so arbitrary and inflaming both foreign and domestic resentment towards his heavy handed executive orders.

 

There must be some kind of rational middle ground between unrestrained open borders a-la Merkel and "Fortress America" a-la Trump. 



#69
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,697 posts


She recommended the Justice department not to defend a lawful order. Sure she was within her right to do what she did, but such acts of defiance usually get you fired. Of course the justice department has been looking the other way for a while, when Obama tried rewriting immigration law.

Okay I'm going to have to look this up myself, because I'm hearing she had no authority to do what she did. So once again..politics.

I don't think you understand what Driver said. She reviewed it and found it not constitutional and poorly written. She said she would uphold the law in her own statement to her people if the Executive Order was re-written to reflect changes that are within the Constitution. She is part of our government meant to work within the law. When an EO is written that is within the law she will do her best to abide it. You see, you can't just make edicts. As Trump is learning, there are lawyers out there who are willing to go and take him to court and she has to have the right tools to say "Okay, I can defend Trump's EO because it has a lawful basis." Because while she works for Trump, the judges this **** is brought before don't and they will follow the letter of the law as it is stated in the Constitution. Hence, Trump's my bad. 
 
I can't tell kids "You will learn to do geometry proofs" and then drop the mic and run away. I've got to provide some frame work for them to learn how to do this. 
 
If the ex-AG wants, I could see a wrongful termiination suit but that I am not as sure about. Just a random thought during conference period I'm wasting on the internet.
The order was reviewed by Justice department lawyers and okayed before it was put in front of her. She took it upon herself to do what she did. With her being an Obama appointee that doesn't on any level make this look like a political move to you? Even the slightest?

#70
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Was it grandstanding or showing the millions of people who feel doomed that there's people within the government willing to fight what they consider an administration that's a threat?

Yes, it was especially grandstanding if that was the message.

 

 

 

And his first military operation in Yemen resulted in a soldier's death.

 

Now that's just scummy to mention.  Using a soldier's death, that almost certainly would have happened were Obama in office, as a political cudgel.



#71
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,697 posts
Poe it's a narrative. And that comment fits the narrative. Spam forgot to mention that the operation was conceived and approved under the Obama administration. It was given the go ahead by Trump. That's makes it his fault apparently.

People's narrative about immigration flies in the face of a record number of deportations under the Obama administration. But to counteract that we allowed record number of immigrants. Sigh......

This land is your land, this land is my land........
***Seriously though Trump, let us make fun of that stuff***

#72
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,634 posts
Yeah. Sheesh. It is hard to fill the void left by Pong. I am not eloquent enough to poke the bear like our old moderator.

Honestly it is not a Muslim ban but it can be posed in a way that it is.

#73
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

She recommended the Justice department not to defend a lawful order. Sure she was within her right to do what she did, but such acts of defiance usually get you fired. Of course the justice department has been looking the other way for a while, when Obama tried rewriting immigration law.

Okay I'm going to have to look this up myself, because I'm hearing she had no authority to do what she did. So once again..politics.

I don't think you understand what Driver said. She reviewed it and found it not constitutional and poorly written. She said she would uphold the law in her own statement to her people if the Executive Order was re-written to reflect changes that are within the Constitution. She is part of our government meant to work within the law. When an EO is written that is within the law she will do her best to abide it. You see, you can't just make edicts. As Trump is learning, there are lawyers out there who are willing to go and take him to court and she has to have the right tools to say "Okay, I can defend Trump's EO because it has a lawful basis." Because while she works for Trump, the judges this **** is brought before don't and they will follow the letter of the law as it is stated in the Constitution. Hence, Trump's my bad. 
 
I can't tell kids "You will learn to do geometry proofs" and then drop the mic and run away. I've got to provide some frame work for them to learn how to do this. 
 
If the ex-AG wants, I could see a wrongful termiination suit but that I am not as sure about. Just a random thought during conference period I'm wasting on the internet.

The order was reviewed by Justice department lawyers and okayed before it was put in front of her. She took it upon herself to do what she did. With her being an Obama appointee that doesn't on any level make this look like a political move to you? Even the slightest?


What are we calling what all the politicians that wouldn't participate in Obama's last Supreme justice confirmation (or lack there of).

#74
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Is there anyone who doesn't acknowledge that confirmations are a political process?



#75
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,697 posts
Childish partisan politics?

Apples and pears though. The Democrats are only delaying the inevitable. The Republicans weren't going to let Obama select a Supreme Court candidate when he had less than a year left in office. Talk was that Garland had a chance to make it through confirmation.



Reply to this topic