-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
It's just amusing that you and others have now become so very concerned with the wellbeing of Iraqi interpreters when it suddenly became a stick to hit Trump with.
When did the topic ever come up on TSF? Find me a date, a post, even a vague recollection. Then you've got a position to argue from.
Otherwise, you've got fuck all.
Its kind of like supporting a team in the EPL if you havent supported them since you were born you're not allowed to enjoy watching them now.
-
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
It's just amusing that you and others have now become so very concerned with the wellbeing of Iraqi interpreters when it suddenly became a stick to hit Trump with.
When did the topic ever come up on TSF? Find me a date, a post, even a vague recollection. Then you've got a position to argue from.
Otherwise, you've got fuck all.
This isn't about TSF FFS. The fact is Iraqi interpreters being granted US visas has been an issue for a number of years, particularly under the Obama administration which was often criticised for not doing enough. How odd that you (and god knows how many others now rallying to their cause) never gave a shit about them until you could use them as a key argument against a Trump policy.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
How odd that you (and god knows how many others now rallying to their cause) never gave a shit about them until you could use them as a key argument against a Trump policy.
And you KNOW I didn't give a shit about them how, exactly? Don't believe we've ever met. Have never spoken on the phone. Pretty fucking obscure topic, while we're at it.
Yet, I mention one point about Iraqi interpreters getting caught up in the EO visa ban on a website populated by random arseholes, and you run screaming to call me an uncaring fluffybunny. Right. Good logic.
-
P.S. go read a few books about Aussie or US ex-servicemen in Iraq of Afghanistan. A few of them cover the topic of the interpreters and general ground troops, and some are less complimentary than others.
One thing that stuck out was the fear some of them felt about the Western armies leaving before the job was done. Those blokes knew they were fucked, along with their families, if that ever happened. So they took the risk.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
How odd that you (and god knows how many others now rallying to their cause) never gave a shit about them until you could use them as a key argument against a Trump policy.
And you KNOW I didn't give a shit about them how, exactly? Don't believe we've ever met. Have never spoken on the phone. Pretty fucking obscure topic, while we're at it.
Yet, I mention one point about Iraqi interpreters getting caught up in the EO visa ban on a website populated by random arseholes, and suddenly I'm an uncaring fluffybunny. Right. Good logic.
No you're right. That was very presumptuous of me. I'm sure you (and all those others who've now discovered that it's vital Iraqi interpreters enter the country) always held a torch for them.
I'm not calling you an uncaring fluffybunny. Settle down.
-
Thanks "river" guy
Honestly Wairau thanks. It's been a while since anything legitimately like informative has been posted in this thread and while I don't understand all of it I'm better informed than reading some of the other diatribes and dick waving "do some research" contests
Far too much playing the man and not the ball on these topics
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Have an example of a translator actually refused? Not just questioned.. but refused and sent home after they arrived at a US airport?
It's only been a couple of days. Give it time.
Reading the legislation, there are exceptions stated:
and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
That phrase is used later.
If you've got something different for the SIV Program, I'm all ears.
So you are outraged about something that has not actually happened?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
So you are outraged about something that has not actually happened?
The TPP isn't dead yet, but you had your knickers in a twist over it. And blamed Hilary, which was funny, but slightly confusing.
-
@mooshld said in US Politics:
Wow I am shocked, shocked ,that several posters on this forum are not up in arms about this precious snowflake creating a safe space where only opinions they agree with are heard by firing someone who disagrees with them, on a point of law.
After all the bleating about those evil liberal universities doing the same thing. Shocked I tell you.
Cue the relevant parties coming in with but Obama did the same, or this is different because...... your an idiot for inferring an equivalency.
She got fired for not doing her job. Her job is to fight cases for the US govt, she had an obligation to do her job, she decided to do politics. She needed to go. She is not a judge,she is not the president, she is a political appointment, she does not get to choose to just disregard the law.
It was hubris and stupidity on an huge scale.
You want to test the legality... go before a judge. Where both sides can argue the case. Not where one side argues the case and the other one refuses to... because .. politicsAnd what tare you blathering on about safe spaces for?
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
So you are outraged about something that has not actually happened?
The TPP isn't dead yet, but you had your knickers in a twist over it. And blamed Hilary, which was funny, but slightly confusing.
I am sure it was confusing for you, alot seems to be.
I will explain why I blame Hilary, because she ran a shit campaign that allowed Trump to waltz in.
And you dont think TPP with the US invlved is dead? wow... you really have not been paying attantion.BTW.. where is your condemnation of the this Obama flunky trying to stop Trumps EO being tested in court? You went very quiet on that front very quickly.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
It's just amusing that you and others have now become so very concerned with the wellbeing of Iraqi interpreters when it suddenly became a stick to hit Trump with.
When did the topic ever come up on TSF? Find me a date, a post, even a vague recollection. Then you've got a position to argue from.
Otherwise, you've got fuck all.
This isn't about TSF FFS. The fact is Iraqi interpreters being granted US visas has been an issue for a number of years, particularly under the Obama administration which was often criticised for not doing enough. How odd that you (and god knows how many others now rallying to their cause) never gave a shit about them until you could use them as a key argument against a Trump policy.
But Trump is in now.. so all these issues suddenly matter.. heck Chuck Schumer is now crying about it. Literally crying. Did he cry when terrorists actually murdered people?
-
BSG, we get that you didn't like Obama or Clinton. That's kind of quite clear after your hundreds of posts explaining away every Trump move as 'but Obama did this' or 'but Hillary says this'. I think you can take it that your position is known.
Personally I'd be far more interested in your take on Trump's moves themselves because it puzzles me that your posts always read as 'support' for him (yes, you are also careful to never actually declare support) yet this seems entirely at odds to your opinion of someone like Winston Peters who ticks a lot of the same boxes as Trump.
You seem very happy trying to shoot down other peoples views without actually declaring your own. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
That's kind of quite clear after your hundreds of posts explaining away every Trump move as 'but Obama did this' or 'but Hillary says this'. I think you can take it that your position is known.
Its only "whataboutery" when someone else does it.
Rule of the Fern.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
She got fired for not doing her job. Her job is to fight cases for the US govt,
Bollocks, the AG's job is to give advice to the Pres & to any other department heads re the legality of actions. Which is 100% what she did.
She spelled it out very clearly -
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts."
IE her job is to ensure that the government policy is legal & will stand up in court. Which she 100% did. Its no different to Nixon firing his AG when he refused to fire the special prosecutor investing Watergate.
You clearly have zero fricking idea what the AG's job is. As does Trump.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
She got fired for not doing her job. Her job is to fight cases for the US govt,
Bollocks, the AG's job is to give advice to the Pres & to any other department heads re the legality of actions. Which is 100% what she did.
She spelled it out very clearly -
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts."
IE her job is to ensure that the government policy is legal & will stand up in court. Which she 100% did. Its no different to Nixon firing his AG when he refused to fire the special prosecutor investing Watergate.
You clearly have zero fricking idea what the AG's job is. As does Trump.
Oh just fuck off. lol
After typing that steaming pile of horse manure you tell me I dont know what the AG's job is??? wow....
Her job might be to advise, it is not to decide wether to argue for the legally binding EO. She did not just advise, she instructed her dept not to fight the cases... with no evidence, just her opinion, which was just a political opinion not a legal one. Let the courts decide if it is legal, not some Obama flunky making a political stand.
If she didnt think she could fight the cases, resign.
The EO had already been run through Office of Legal Counsel a the DOJShe can advise as much as she likes, but she made a politically motivated hachet job.
And it is completely and utterly different to Nixon, I am not even going to bother debating that nonsense.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"The Justice Department confirmed its Office of Legal Counsel had done a review of the order to determine whether it was "on its face, lawful, and properly drafted."But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose."
That passage appeared to refer to comments by Trump about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, and to remarks by Rudy Giuliani, who told Fox News that Trump had wanted to impose a "Muslim ban" but wanted advisers to find a way to do it "legally." Immigrants rights advocates said Giuliani's words could offer them evidence to prove the administration had a "discriminatory purpose."
The Democratic National Committee blasted Trump for trying to "silence" Yates and predicted the confirmation of his nominee to lead the Justice Department would get tougher. Many top former DOJ officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and civil rights chief Tom Perez, tweeted messages of support. "Person of integrity/attorney with great legal skill," Holder wrote. "Her judgment should be trusted."
But some DOJ veterans and law professors found some fault with how she handled the conflict over the immigration order. On the Lawfare blog, professor Jack Goldsmith pointed out that Yates had not clearly determined the immigration order was unconstitutional or cited other legitimate bases for refusing to defend it.
Goldsmith wrote: "she wrote a letter that appears to depart sharply from the usual criteria that an Attorney General would apply in deciding whether to defend an EO in court. As such, the letter seems like an act of insubordination that invites the President to fire her. Which he did.""
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/justice-department-wont-defend-trumps-immigration-order
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
BSG, we get that you didn't like Obama or Clinton. That's kind of quite clear after your hundreds of posts explaining away every Trump move as 'but Obama did this' or 'but Hillary says this'. I think you can take it that your position is known.
Personally I'd be far more interested in your take on Trump's moves themselves because it puzzles me that your posts always read as 'support' for him (yes, you are also careful to never actually declare support) yet this seems entirely at odds to your opinion of someone like Winston Peters who ticks a lot of the same boxes as Trump.
You seem very happy trying to shoot down other peoples views without actually declaring your own.I would have answered, but you need to work on not asking question like a snide ass hat, because I just assume you not being genuine.
... you dont think I make my views known enough? Yeah that is a new one.. or maybe you are just full of it and don't pay attention to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
BTW.. where is your condemnation of the this Obama flunky trying to stop Trumps EO being tested in court? You went very quiet on that front very quickly.
Yeah still silent... just as I thought.
US Politics