|
| Thread: So. You guys still think Trump is no problem? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 01, 2025 01:50 PM |
|
|
What is it with you, linking to articles that you didn't read? The problem are not the camps, obviously. Camps are all over the place, not only in the US, but also in Europe, for refugees.
It's also a difference WHO you put there: the people COMING, illegally or as refugees, to keep them from just disappearing somewhere; or the people already living in that country, having a job, a family and so on (and even tourists).
And lastly it's a difference of how they are TREATED there. And they are treated badly, as people report who were detained unlawfully and wrongly, having visa, being on holiday and so on.
So, since you prefer bluntness, you are just seeing what you want to see. And you come up with the same totalitarian crap as ever: things are bad, we can't do it by the book anymore, we need to throw the books away and start solving problems. Now, one of those problems is that you cannot just take people and get them out of your country, because there is no unclaimed land anymore. You cannot detain people and puash them over the next border.
It also doesn't make sense to just arrest people from the streets. Humans have RIGHTs, illegal or not. And lots of illegals have families and jobs and pay taxes - it would be easier to give them green cards. So it's certainly within the rights of each country to guard their borders against illegal border crossings and keep people from entering illegally.
But you cannot go ahead and detain people living IN your country withholding to them the right to a lawyer and everything the constitution grants.
That are totalitarian methods and in totalitarian countries NO ONE is safe. Why stop with illegals? Why not get rid of miscreants and loudmouths who knows what?
Which means, you are are completely misguided. It isn't complex, as you claim, it's pretty simple. You can always find excuses for why laws must be broken because there is no other choice, but that's just nonsense and propaganda. And there is nothing complex in blaming a specific group for all kinds of things, especially when that group cannot fight back.
And you aren't Amnerican. You are just xenophobe and have something against immigrants.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted June 01, 2025 02:35 PM |
|
|
|
It depends on money i.e. wealth can join to right, neutral or left.. I don't think that dynastic Trump family becomes rich in Russian empire.. So wrong discussion..
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 01, 2025 03:23 PM |
|
|
I don't give a monkey's about the old cushy stratagem of removing "illegal" from "illegal immigration" to be then able to jump to xenophobia and fascism ad hominem argumentum. The people spoke democratically, you don't accept it, so ask your mirror who is the totalitarian here.
Funny how you add again and again that "I am not American so why I dare". You as German, on the other side, makes sense ? Maybe some residual feeling of entitlement about controlling the world?
I didn't see any created thread about Biden's or Kamala's failures to deliver, it's always one way, Trump here, Trump there. You guys just can't cope and chill when the narrative slips outside your bubble. Seek help.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2025 04:56 PM |
|
|
The people elected Trump into office. That doesn't mean they voted for him to deconstruct the constitution to make himself the Emperor. The didn't vote to throw away the constitution.
Trump was elected PRESIDENT. Within the boundaries of the constitution.
If Trump would act according to the constitution you wouldn't see me saying anything - or anyone else, for that matter.
So that's no point you are making. And I thought you liked Trump's bluntness. I mean, of course you are xenophobe. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but in France, people born in the ex colonies can come to France, LEGALLY. It's their right. And if I'm not completely wrong everyone is completely happy when these people help France winning medals and trophies in sports.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 01, 2025 06:15 PM |
|
|
Comparing apples with oranges.
USA was born with settlers, then became what it is now through immigration, exclusively. So, the problem was never "should we allow immigration" because without it, there would be no country.
Now, for France, no. Nobody can come and install in France without asking a permit first. Be it student visa, work permit, 10 years visa, you need to proceed through the legal system, otherwise you are undocumented and subject to deportation. So you don't know what you're talking about.
Now, of course, I am an strong defender of national and cultural identity, I never claimed other. There can't be nation if same moral, philosophical and social values are not shared or are conflicting.
Nevertheless, and here are the limits of your grasping on the matter, or simply your voluntary bad faith, of which you abuse so often, I never claimed that identity and culture are a genetic legacy. I do not believe that to be Russian - for example, you have to claim Russian ancestors. Or be white. Or blond, or tall, or blue eyed, or well-hung.
Instead, you have to show interest for the country you wish to live in, for its morals, ethics, values, history, language, culture and so on. The desire of becoming part of, then the personal effort to achieve this osmosis. Otherwise you will remain a stranger, with all the inconveniences created by that anomaly. Don't complain if that happens, it is on you.
About Trump denying constitution, I've seen the examples given. Like that Salvador guy, which was found as gang member by officials, then declared gang member by Salvador itself, but then suddenly there was a fuss because X or Y, lawyers, declared he is not.
The bottom line is, the system is overloaded by uncontrolled illegal mass immigration going on for decades. Now, that is overloaded, it becomes realistically impossible to get back to normal, except by drastic measures. Instead, and not surprisingly, what you propose is regularize everybody, now that they are here, why bother. And that's the democrat schema from the beginning, let things get the worse possible then give up.
Well, fairness is a moral value which we should bother for. Respect is not due, but earned. Merit and good actions are rewarded. Bad actions are punished. This is how our civilization has bloomed and why today it acts like a magnet for everybody else, although the others seem to catch pretty quick now. Not because we reward the criminal and the thief, but because we encourage and reward good behavior and honesty. Check the dictionary, if you somehow forgot those words.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2025 06:39 PM |
|
|
I checked again nfor France and found this:
Quote:
All persons born within the country to at least one French national or foreign parent who themself was born in France automatically receive French nationality at birth.
All persons born abroad to at least one French parent are automatically French from birth. French nationality can be continually transmitted through each generation born abroad provided that each subsequent generational birth is registered. Abandoned children found in France with unclear parentage and any other children born in the country who would otherwise be stateless are granted French nationality.
Individuals born in France on or before 31 December 1993 automatically acquired French nationality at birth if at least one parent was born in former French colonies prior to independence. Since that date, only children of Algerians born in French Algeria who were resident in metropolitan France for at least five years on or before 2 July 1962 have been able to automatically acquire French nationality at birth.
Children born in France to foreign parents born overseas are automatically granted French nationality at age 18 if they are domiciled in France and have been resident in the country for at least five years since age 11. Those under age 16 who were born in the country and resident in France at age eight are eligible for French nationality by declaration, executed on their behalf by their parents; an eligible child's explicit consent to acquire nationality is required after age 13.
Foreigners over age 18 may naturalise as French nationals at the discretion of the government after residing in the country for at least five years. Applicants must hold no criminal record and demonstrate that they have sufficiently assimilated to the French community (typically by becoming proficient in the French language and confirming knowledge in national republican values). Candidates who are married or have children must provide evidence of their domicile in France in addition to their own.
So it's just French Algeria, after 1993. But in any case it looks not that difficult to gain citizenship.
France has 1ß% of the pop immigrants in 2021, In 2018 it were even 14%. Half of those are coming out of French-speaking ex-colonies - which means half of them is fluid in the language.
Apart from that I STILL just see disregard for the written law with you, when it's not serving your purpowse. You can't just make up some rules "Show desire to become part, the personal effort" that are completely in the eye of the beholder and the cry foul and aout with them. A state of law works differently. You can't just DECREE, someone is guilty of this or that. No matter what YOU say.
That is true for the US as well.
Decreeing what is suddenly right and lawful and whatnot and citing extraordinary circumstances have been done for a long time to justify a slide into totalitarism.
If you want to live in a totalitarian state, just say it. If not, you cannpt pick in which cases the state can act totalitarian and in which cases it, please, please, shouldn't.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted June 01, 2025 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 20:12, 01 Jun 2025.
|
You are roughly twice as old as me. Even if you don't agree remotely with Trump's policies, it should not be difficult at all for you to comprehend why people vote for Trump.
Here is the AI-generated response from Google on why people commonly vote for Trump, which gives an extremely good answer:
Reasons for Supporting Donald Trump:
Economic Policies: Many supporters believe Trump's policies, such as tax cuts and deregulation, stimulate the economy and create jobs. Some feel he is the best candidate to fix the economy and bring back jobs.
Immigration: Trump's hardline stance on immigration and border security resonates with voters who prioritize these issues.
Strong Leadership: Supporters often view Trump as a strong leader who is willing to challenge the status quo and fight for American interests.
"Tough" Image: Trump's assertive and sometimes controversial rhetoric is seen as a sign of strength and decisiveness by some.
Anti-Establishment Sentiment: Many feel that Trump is not part of the political establishment and is more likely to represent the interests of ordinary people.
Perceived Authenticity: Some supporters see Trump as authentic and believe he speaks his mind, even if his views are unconventional.
"America First" Policies: Trump's focus on prioritizing American interests in trade, foreign policy, and other areas appeals to some voters.
Basically, Trump is a charismatic anti-establishment leader who is naturally talented in front of a camera, at least just as much as what Adolf Hitler was in front of an audience. You sitting at your computer/with your phone claiming that he is devoid of all talent doesn't undo what millions of other people say. You are just one angry man in front of a screen, and your subjective opinion is not a fulcrum which determines truth from untruth. Your personal opinion is your own personal opinion and nothing more or less than that.
edit:
On the question of constitutionality, things are currently working as they are intended to function. It's not as if Trump (or any other US president ever) has to go to the federal courts in advance whenever they decide to draft & sign an executive order. How it is suppose to work is that the president & his team are able to create and sign executive orders. And then if a federal judgment determines that some aspects or all aspects of the order are unconstitutional, he or she can temporarily block the order until the higher court reaches a determination. That is exactly how it is suppose to work. A president isn't going to be punished for signing an executive order that is later determined to be unconstitutional. That would be inane.
If the president continues to move forward with an action in direct violation of the courts, that is when the president can/should be held in contempt of a court order. Never before.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted June 08, 2025 09:06 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 03:23, 09 Jun 2025.
|
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-habeas-corpus-and-what-has-the-trump-administration-said-about-suspending-it
^ This is the Trump administration's plans of suspending habeas corpus.
Not-so-fun fact: historically, it has already been suspended in spite of a Supreme Court justice ruling, when the ruling was ignored by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
Now, what the Trump admin could potentially try is to suspend habeas corpus on the argument that the US is currently experiencing "an invasion" because of the illegal immigrants in the country. The previous times habeas corpus was suspended was either during/after the civil war, in parts of the Philippines back when it was a colony, and in Hawaii during the second world war (Hawaii did not have statehood until 1959).
If habeas corpus were to be suspended under the argument the Trump admin is giving, what that effectively means is that it could be suspended either indefinitely or it could be suspended over and over again at any point in the future, because there is never going to be a point where there aren't illegal immigrants in the country, and therefore the country will always be experiencing "an invasion".
There is currently a 0% chance such a thing would ever be authorized by Congress, so Trump would need to attempt to do it through an executive order, which is guaranteed to be shot down by a judge and later shot down by the Supreme Court as well (the Supreme Court is currently conservative, but not to the extent of what Trump would like to do). Trump might then attempt to go forward with it anyway, in which case we would be moving into unknown territory. Basically, it would be the judicial branch versus the executive branch, which means there could be police employed by the courts and police employed by the White House having conflicting orders. When it happened back during the civil war, everybody basically ignored the Supreme Court and did what Lincoln wanted to do, which was an overreach and abuse of power on Lincoln's part. Granted, the poor guy was dealing with some extremely serious ****, so most people (in the north) just forgave him for the breach and moved on. He was dealt a horrible hand.
Trump's reasons for wanting to do it are extraordinarily weak by comparison. It would just be an attempt to give himself de facto emperor of the Republic status for detaining whoever he "needs" to detain. It would mark a new era with unrivaled power from the executive branch, and it would mean future administrations could do the same thing under very dubious pretenses.
____________
|
|
purerogue3
Known Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2025 04:59 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
