-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
@antipodean Meh, TPP was always a goner, another example of transparency and keeping his word, and much better to get it out of the way and focus on producing real change, as he is doing.
Yeah he's kept his word, but to what end?
China will be difficult indeed, so let's wait and see. Peter Navarro and Carl Icahn are tough nuts, and Trump has already staked out a number of assertive positions.
Being tough nuts doesn't equate to sensible, workable policy positions. In torpedoing the TPP, Trump lost the best-known case for containing China in the South East and Pacific. He's removed a trading block to deal with China's economic power and in doing so, harmed strategic relationships.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
It isn't really the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the others: how does this score any political points for a (very) weak Democrat movement? Trump was going to remove anyone he didn't like, anyway.
Yates has been in the acting AG job 10 days, probably doesn't give a fuck actually, so she's happy to jump.
But tell me, what political gain can these 20 Republicans hope to make by protesting the move?
Forget about the party bullshit for a second: if this is tested in a Court of Law and found to be Unlawful or Unconstitutional, then everything about the EO is fucking wrong from start to finish; firstly not consulting the right people, to then implementing it rapidly, without actual plans of how to handle the many and varied cases covered under protecting US borders.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA I expect it will be tested because Trump isn't about to flip flop on the issue
There are already a few legal actions up and running that will probably result in court cases.
If you attempt to rule through poor legislation, except it to be used as the political weapon with which you are ousted.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
It isn't really the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the others: how does this score any political points for a (very) weak Democrat movement? Trump was going to remove anyone he didn't like, anyway.
Yates has been in the acting AG job 10 days, probably doesn't give a fuck actually, so she's happy to jump.
But tell me, what political gain can these 20 Republicans hope to make by protesting the move?
Forget about the party bullshit for a second: if this is tested in a Court of Law and found to be Unlawful or Unconstitutional, then everything about the EO is fucking wrong from start to finish; firstly not consulting the right people, to then implementing it rapidly, without actual plans of how to handle the many and varied cases covered under protecting US borders.
Are you serious? Now why would an Obama appointee want to try and make Trump look bad? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
There are many Republicans who are strong open-border advocates (not to mention Trump opponents) so it is absolutely no surprise whatsoever that some are protesting.
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
I think its going to be very important - the content of the order can be debated under law, and so can many aspects of its implementation.
It'll be a drawn-out process for the top legal minds in the Supreme Court at a constitutional level, but a lot of the cases I'm reading about pertain to individuals, and even institutions and companies whose ability to move/trade/employ etc are limited by what is (potentially) illegal.
Expedia and Amazon, based in Washington State, are backing the state AG over this.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
I think its going to be very important - the content of the order can be debated under law, and so can many aspects of its implementation.
It'll be a drawn-out process for the top legal minds in the Supreme Court at a constitutional level, but a lot of the cases I'm reading about pertain to individuals, and even institutions and companies whose ability to move/trade/employ etc are limited by what is (potentially) illegal.
Expedia and Amazon, based in Washington State, are backing the state AG over this.
How can it be debated under law when one side is told not to argue?
-
@NTA ah, ok, one more. Since you didn't reply properly.
-
What relevance does Gingrich have now? Can't you see how off topic and selective it is, how can I believe anything you write when you spout such nonsense?
-
So, you blindly follow Loretta Lynch and all her statements. And Eric Holder? Or just this one because it's the latest topic to whinge about? Your post is one of the most laughable I have read, Shady Gollum would be jealous.
There is a term for liberals who acquiesce so easily: useful idiots.
Notice: I never said you were either....but maybe.... -
I can see you have no idea about whether the EO is constitutional or not. But, you never answered my other questions either:
.....the obvious lack of impartiality of Obama appointed officials, and judges. It's another part of the swamp to be drained. Furthermore, are you just referring to this EO, or all of them. On the assumption you are being selective, why only this one?
I remembered a while ago you had a vituperative response to my questions on unvetted muslim immigration from war zones. I ignored it at the time as toooo busy and couldn't give a toss. But now you are focusing on this EO. Hmmm...
What I like is Trump's move to make a viable safe zone. I have been wanting that for years. -
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Furthermore, are you just referring to this EO, or all of them. On the assumption you are being selective, why only this one?
Here's how I differentiate them, based on these examples:
- ACA repeal is going to need a lot of work, mainly to figure out how to build a better, cheaper one.
- Pipeline construction as another example isn't really "start breaking ground", more that it allows those companies interested in building the pipeline to restart/continue the application process.
- Wall needs a lot of investigation into the logistics and project costs of actually doing it; they're not just running out and putting slabs of prefab into place today.
This one is different, in that it has more immediate effect. There are existing procedures, but suddenly they're adding special treatment to a bunch of countries. This can be done relatively swiftly, perhaps before the full ramifications, both legal and political, can be assessed.
The implementation is clumsy, but the policy itself needs to be questioned when there is little real justification for those countries, and not others, being included. Why isn't Pakistan on the list? And Afghanistan?
They probably have their own markers, I suppose. But its a genuine shame that people like Iraqi interpreters who helped the US military effort are getting stiffed, despite being targets of assassination in their homeland.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
They probably have their own markers, I suppose. But its a genuine shame that people like Iraqi interpreters who helped the US military effort are getting stiffed, despite being targets of assassination in their homeland.
They wont get stiffed. None of them have been refused entry, they just had to jump through some extra hoops.. Big deal
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
They wont get stiffed. None of them have been refused entry, they just had to jump through some extra hoops.. Big deal
If, at the end of the 90 day period, things like the SIV are allowed to continue, then sure.
In the meantime, they're not allowed in. No extra hoops applicable under the word "ban".
I'm less than convinced by the language around the implementation, as it relates to a possible end to the ban in its current form, or modification to something better or worse.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
They wont get stiffed. None of them have been refused entry, they just had to jump through some extra hoops.. Big deal
If, at the end of the 90 day period, things like the SIV are allowed to continue, then sure.
In the meantime, they're not allowed in. No extra hoops applicable under the word "ban".
I'm less than convinced by the language around the implementation, as it relates to a possible end to the ban in its current form, or modification to something better or worse.
Yes actually they are. You are believing the bullshit. Have an example of a translator actually refused? Not just questioned.. but refused and sent home after they arrived at a US airport?
You seriously need to do more research. There are allowances built in to the EO and they have been used.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
They wont get stiffed. None of them have been refused entry, they just had to jump through some extra hoops.. Big deal
If, at the end of the 90 day period, things like the SIV are allowed to continue, then sure.
In the meantime, they're not allowed in. No extra hoops applicable under the word "ban".
I'm less than convinced by the language around the implementation, as it relates to a possible end to the ban in its current form, or modification to something better or worse.
Interesting that people now really really truely give a shit about Iraqi interpreters. I mean, its not as if this wasn't an issue before.
-
@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.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Interesting that people now really really truely give a shit about Iraqi interpreters. I mean, its not as if this wasn't an issue before.
Meaning?
-
@NTA On the Muslim thing. I have always wanted Islam to have a genuine modernisation/reformation. Their leadership MUST do much better.
Here is a list of Trump's EOs and EAs and Memorandums so far. Many of them have immediate effect, but it's not reported on. :
-withdrawal from TPP
-ACA relief
-hiring and regulation freeze
-keystone pipeline within 2 months
-dakato pipeline
both using US steel, expedited environmental reviews-report to Trump within 120 days of regulations that can be lifted on Domestic manufacturing
-wall, plus 5000 new officers plus seeks report on US foreign aid to Mexico for last 5 years
-internal deportation powers and sanctuary cities
-ban on entry from 7 countries.
-30 day military readiness review
-ethics commitment
-organisation of HS council and national Security Council
-ISIS plan within 30 days
-one in two out regulation orderAll of these can be reviewed once Sessions is the new AG and has implemented staff changes-so is able to help on the EOs. (They have sufficient help now from individuals from multiple departments, but the process would be better through the Justice Department. The Democrats are, of course, doing everything they can to make him go slow-but he will not be thwarted from doing a good job).
He is following a clear plan, constructing from the ground up, building a framework. On the 7-there is some cover that this is what the previous administration did, plus it has a surprise and shock element, -but I think a core reason might be to stop aggressive elements from those countries coming to the US once action against ISIS begins. Notice how quickly he and Assisi have got agreement from Saudi Arabia on safe zones.
To answer other points in your post:
ACA-Trump knows what he wants, but implementing a much more workable solution is going to cause a lot of GOP headaches.
Wall-well, it will happen, and it will be effective. I hope they are able to secure the border more until then. The flow of drugs and crime is appalling.For me, next step is Supreme Court, then react to the fallout to finish cabinet appointments. Then, flush out those departments and streamline them. In the background laws are being written, and then they must be passed. Step up, GOP!
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Interesting that people now really really truely give a shit about Iraqi interpreters. I mean, its not as if this wasn't an issue before.
Meaning?
Meaning that the question of allowing Iraqi interpreters to migrate to the US has been an issue for a number of years and particularly since US forces left. Nice of you to belatedly give a shit.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nice of you to belatedly give a shit.
So, the topic not having come up before in this company, I'm supposed to suddenly feel guilty about it or something?
Fucking hell you sound like a SJW with a statement like that.
US Politics