Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Politics in the U.S.
Thread: Politics in the U.S. This Popular Thread is 153 pages long: 1 20 40 60 ... 76 77 78 79 80 ... 100 120 140 153 · «PREV / NEXT»
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted February 04, 2017 05:34 PM
Edited by markkur at 18:42, 04 Feb 2017.

Corribus said:
fred79 said:
this. so much, this. we(nor any other country) should EVER worry about people outside it's borders, until the people inside it's borders, are taken care of.

This is very linear (one dimensional) thinking, which presumes nations (and their people) exist in isolation of each other.


Strongly disagree. <imvho> I doubt anyone here has a "grander" vision (huge wish) for unity on Earth than I do and I should not need to spell out my source.

However, the only "aspect" where you are correct with that, is in the ...money-universe. The Greed-Mongers purposely intertwined "some" nations,(think <ahem> "controlled trade-deals") between themselves...where they dictated who would make what part and where to assemble the whole object.

"Their objective" being to have each part or running-process made/executed as cheaply as possible...as in no competition, just "their-bargain". It is a new form of Collective-Bargaining where Unions (think working conditions, safety and pay)have no say, only the fat-cats dictate the world now. Does anyone here honestly believe that people in China are the new...old American Middle-class???

That is not integration of countries but...Profit. The only area <imo> that the people of Earth have experienced nearly the same day-to-day Reality is corrupted leaders, saying lies, protecting their own ilk while ignoring the needs of the masses. Yes, indeed that IS global unity of peoples and in a serious but undesirable form.

Btw, it has been argued that prior to WWI there was more true Globalization than now. Uncontrolled Greed and deception highjacks everything in the end. "Cherry-picking the world" is not free-anything.

Globalization is little better than a wish right now. I can say that "we all breathe the same air and drink the same water"
But that is meaningless, because the very Air we breathe and the Water we drink is not uniform around the Earth. Therefore a desirably nice sentiment solves nothing on the ground in reality.

JollyJoker said:
@ markkur

for Milo and speech of freedom: I agree with this


"He could have applauded the University’s decision not to censor the speech and to provide resources for security."

That writing...reeks of "purpose".

How about this perspective JJ?

People on the ground said "the Police did little for too long a time". If that is true - it doesn't sound like much of a Nazi state to me.

Ftr, our PEOPLE already pay MASSIVE-TAXES and yet our representative organizations and our laws are failing/ignored and State-leaders are doing a terrible job in areas all the damned time.

More Resources!? My patutty. We have the largest government in the world. The American taxpayer needs reduced taxes not more tax-bills.

And what do folks think our Beloved, so fair and honest Media, would have said in bold-print, had President Trump responded to the Chaos by calling out the National-Guard, as has been done many times during our U.S. history in times of flaming-riots?

I can tell exactly.


____________
"Do your own research"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted February 04, 2017 09:32 PM

Corribus said:

This is very linear (one dimensional) thinking, which presumes nations (and their people) exist in isolation of each other.


it mainly depends on what you put behind those words. It can be all, some, or very little. I doubt fred implies that countries and individuals must only care for themselves, as, at my knowledge, fred enlisted for Iraq and put his life into jeopardy. Which means that, from the data we have right now, fred is the only individual here who factually helped another nation. All others count for thin air, muezzins gossiping.

So we are back to what this implies, does it imply that we are willing to send our soldiers fight and die, to end such wars, that we are ready to create humanitarian corridors, provide first aid and food, then help to rebuild infrastructure? Yes definitely, and you will find no one, at least in Europe, claiming that we should not care. But now, does it implies we have to accept all those populations to move here, without having even a plan about the economical cost, the impact on our culture and security, I strongly disagree. What are we going to do with millions of people not understanding nor speaking our languages, people who, for the most, believe in different values and will not integrate even in one hundred years? I came in France 22 years ago and I slowly observed the constant and long agony of a nation which lost any pride, trust and faith in its own values and glorious history. You want the same result for USA, go ahead and open large your doors, so every homeless and illegal can hook to the welfare tree, tree watered by brave people working their asses 12 hours a day, as someone has to sacrifice for. But then no one should be surprised they choose to vote differently when occasion is given, the tolerance towards idiocy has thin skin.
____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted February 04, 2017 09:48 PM

From his own words, we know that fred enlisted because he needed the money + he wanted to see different countries and travel. I presume most people have similar reasons and they dont wake up one day going "I must help the Iraqi people at once!"

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with helping out a country, Iraq is having the most bloody and brutal period of its entire history because of what followed and this never was really something too hard to predict.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted February 04, 2017 09:57 PM

The invasion of Iraq is only the top of the iceberg, since there was almost no army to defend. Then it followed 10 years of slow reconstruction, where international forces had to deal with population needs, snipers, terror attacks, etc. From all the people I heard they like to travel (and I heard that from one million of them), I know none who enlisted in Iraq to satisfy such hobby.

Then I didn't say he wanted to help, probably he did it on some impulse, as when he takes a penalty. Nonetheless, the result is there, he helped.
____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted February 04, 2017 10:06 PM

The whole intervention in Iraq, as a whole, did not help, they tried some damage control sure but if I irresponsibly start a fire in a house and then try to move the furniture from the flames, I wouldn't call the process helping.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Blizzardboy
Blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted February 04, 2017 11:00 PM
Edited by Blizzardboy at 23:05, 04 Feb 2017.

Iraq was always about the aspirations of GWB to see Sadam toppled with little regard to the blowback that the majority of the intelligence community knew was going to happen.

IMO its reaching to say he is responsible - solely - for everything that came afterward, even to the present day, because it has long been understood that Iraq was a pressure cooker underneath Sadam. If you want to follow the cause and effect trail long enough, everything is Tom's fault from the year 7000 BC. ISIS came about easily as a result of the vacuum in Iraq, but objectively, we have no idea what would have happened if events were different. Maybe Iran and Iraq would have been involved in a brutal war by now that killed millions or maybe nothing much at all would have happened.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted February 05, 2017 12:53 AM

Who do you mean by "he," Bush?

Anyway, not really. After what happened in Kuwait, Saddam was hardly ever going to do something that aggressive again and his regime was no heaven but it was much more stable and less brutal compared to ISIS. And you could see ISIS coming from a miles ahead, I even wrote it here that there was going to be a radical Islamist grab of power in Iraq, before ISIS was around. So it's not as completely arbitrary speculation as you make it sound and laying out the direct impacts of a recent invasion is not comparable to chain linking cause and effect back to the Stone Age.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Blizzardboy
Blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted February 05, 2017 04:05 AM
Edited by Blizzardboy at 04:23, 05 Feb 2017.

I didn't say it was arbitary, but causes and effects are extremely complex... for instance, how Saddam's Iraq may have been affected by the Arab Spring, or how he - a mass murderer of his own civilian population - may have responded to it. Especially if he reasons to himself that he's in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation. You honestly believe Saddam wouldnt get brutal? Somehow I think you know that it would be - if nothing else - a very strong possibilty. Hell, Assad is far tamer version of Saddam and look how stubborn he's been.

The Arab Spring was mostly a result of new social media technology and the chain reaction it caused once one country started protesting. That was largely how the Syrian civil war got brewing in the first place, though the porous border with Iraq made ISIS develop and expand between the two countries.

So no, I don't agree that one can safely assume the ME would be less bloody with Sadam than without. Nobody has the authority to make such a claim. And disliking GWB or Iraq War 2 doesn't invalidate or negate that Sadam displayed many qualities of a psychopath or at least  a socioath at minimum.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2017 08:48 AM

Don't you start with bullcrap as well now, blizzard. Whether Saddam being a psycho or not is not relevant, because it's obviously no reason to go into a war. If it was, the US would have many wars at their hand.

The US isn't and never was the world police that punishes evil regents - that is and was never a reason to go to war.

And there is no denying that the destruction of the Iraq destroyed the balance of power in the region.

Also, it's not about "going backk to 7000 BC", it's about a war the US had no business whatsoever to lead. There has been a reason UN didn't support the move. It has cost an immense amount of money, and lifes and gained NOTHING AT ALL, except creating havoc.

The US started a job they couldn't finish adequately, and as a result the region is in a state of epileptical fit, trying to find some kind of stability again. Refugees are a byproduct of this process.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2017 10:25 AM

This article will bring many nods, but the author forgets that all fascist regimes started as "fed-up" movements as well (and all violent radical changes like the French revolution as well).

You even had a good point saying that "fascist" IS, what is in the heart of the common people, when they are fed up; there is the tendency to disregard the law because "it is raped and violated by the lawyers anyway and is unjust and working in favor of elites". There is a tendency to make simple laws instead, with justice that the people understand, a bigger police presence, so people can feel safe again, a blatant disregard for "intelligent people", who know things better and tell you what you can do and what not, which isn't what the common people want in these times - I could go on, but THAT IS the heart of fascism.

When you read this, you get an inkling that this battle already has begun: the battle between the executive and the jurisdiction. The executive is basically doing away with the law as we knew it (the executive is limited by the constitution and cannot act unconstitutional - if it does, jurisdictions steps in), trying to make simple laws that many common people would support deep in their hearts BECAUSE of their simpleness - but the world we live in isn't so simple. It's like looking at a complex puzzle, and being fed up with moving the pieces without ever getting something you start to make them fit by just pressing them in.

In this article this is more or less confirmed. An executive order is basically a law, so this is a special possibility for the executive to take over powers of the legislative. If democracy is supposed to work then an executive order MUST be 100% constitutional, because otherwise it's a concentration of all 3 powers in one hand, and that's dictatorship.

It looks like the Trump government is trying to force the issue and battle against the supreme court. If they win, you have fascism.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bloodsucker
bloodsucker


Legendary Hero
posted February 05, 2017 10:37 AM

JollyJoker said:
it's about a war the US had no business whatsoever to lead. There has been a reason UN didn't support the move.
I think you are losing some context here. The US had just leaved Iraq afther the Kuwait war when 9/11 happened and they immediatly put the blame on Saddam. When Bush moved to attack he was imaginning the same type of suport from the UN they had before. that didn't happened the way he thought and by then all the scare and smear tactics used internally where already having an irredutible impact in US public opinion. Don't forget he invaded with bypartisan suport, only after the hole world knew the planes had been Bin Laden's work the Democrats started having a 'strong' position against the invasion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted February 05, 2017 11:01 AM

JollyJoker said:
It looks like the Trump government is trying to force the issue and battle against the supreme court. If they win, you have fascism.


There's no constitutional issue here, nor even a federal issue. The Congress gave to the president and delegated the ability to suspend the entry of any immigrants into the country, and that judge executive order falls fully within that statute. Except the constitution, no one holds 100 percent authority over immigration.

Similar actions have been taken by previous presidents, I already gave exhaustive examples. This is leftist hysteria, they simply shopped the issue around enough to find a judge willing to sacrifice his reputation on the altar of progressive political correctness.

Discussions would be so much more instructive if this fascism crap wasn't constantly evoked.


____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2017 11:13 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 13:01, 05 Feb 2017.

That's just because you fail to see what "fascism" actually is.

Let me repeat t for you - no matter who makes a law, whether the legislative or the executive, these laws must be constitutional, that is, they must not be in violation of it - which is what the supreme court or jurisdiction is supposed to check.

I have tried to explain that in the heart of it, fascism is VERY populistic - it caters for the wish of the common people to "cut the gordic knot", when enough common people feel betrayed by the ruling "class" whether it's aristocrats or a class of professional politicians. People become wary of the law, the more complicated it gets. Perpetrators set free because of technical details, serial killers not being executed but pampered in mental institutions, and so on. A class of lawyers screwing with the law and with people...

Now, obviously the new government has KNOWINGLY made an executive order that is constitutionally doubtful: they made no exceptions for green card holders, for example, even though Bannon was told that this is problematic. This government WANTS the clash with the jurisdiction (the supreme court), because they WANT to expand their power. The will to expand the power is fascist, and the means to achieve it with is populist - cut the gordic knots.

EDIT: And there you go.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2017 11:19 AM

bloodsucker said:
JollyJoker said:
it's about a war the US had no business whatsoever to lead. There has been a reason UN didn't support the move.
I think you are losing some context here. The US had just leaved Iraq afther the Kuwait war when 9/11 happened and they immediatly put the blame on Saddam.

That was not it. The official reason was, that Saddam had to let UN inspectors look for WoMDs, but didn't want to, because he feared an Iranian attack if it would become clear that he didn't have any WoMDs. The US forced the issue AND charged him of SUPPORTING al quaida (even though Saddam actually despised religious fanatics (and al quaida, although he'd probably used them, if he could have done that).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Blizzardboy
Blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted February 05, 2017 05:12 PM
Edited by Blizzardboy at 17:55, 05 Feb 2017.

Quote:
It looks like the Trump government is trying to force the issue and battle against the supreme court. If they win, you have fascism.



Nope. This statement is absurd.

There is always a way to fight against a decision, or at least there should be. An unelected court of old lawyers making a decision and then possibly being countered isn't fascism. It's just a normal part of a system if it is a healthy system.

If the vast majority of a country wants to oppress or bully a group of people, you're screwed no matter what legal guards are in place. Those legal guards will be overcome someway, either through force or through finesse and nuances. Any belief in a system that is immune to populist bullying is a belief that has taken humanity out of the equation, and is therefore a ridiculous belief. But... having an unelected group of old people calling final shots that are immune to criticism or legal challenges is a pretty silly way to try to stop 'fascism'.

You're hung up on the small picture, which is that this travel ban is a horrible decision, not on the big picture, which is that Trump being able to fight against the decision of a judge is perfectly normal and it would be highly disturbing and worrying if he couldnt.



Update: And FYI: I just read Trump lost his first appeal last night. So preliminary results aren't looking good for him.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted February 05, 2017 05:33 PM

While I agree that words like fascist or racist are very easy to throw around these days and this inflation causes a drastic decrease in their impact, JJ is right on his comment that fascist or authoritarian leaders see constitutional "obstacles" as time wasting details and they rely on the crowds' desire to solve things at once without all the "bureaucratic mumbo jumbo." The Gordion Knot is indeed the perfect metaphor there. So if those "unelected lawyers" base their objection on the constitution, that's the part of a healthy system, not the other way around. The elected can change or modify the constitution with a proper voting process but they can not violate it arbitrarily just because they are elected. That's what the separation of powers is all about and structured upon.

Btw, one of my old professors shared this article (Trump is no fascist. He is a champion for the forgotten millions ) from the Guardian on Facebook with a side note:

Why not both?
What is terribly wrong with this article is that it puts us in an either/or situation. Trump is NOT ONLY a self-absorbed, narcissistic, racist bigot (maybe not exactly a fascist, but the difference is undetectable right now), BUT ALSO a clever politico who can exploit the need for change in a considerable percentage of the US population. The fact that the American people was forced into an impossible and sad referendum between Trump and Hillary, was the problem itself. It SEEMED that in this impossible choice Trump stood for "change" and the "people" and Hillary for the status quo and the elite, but this is just an illusion. Nobody stood for real change and for the people: they both stood for the status quo and the elite, but only for different status quos and different elites. One of them won by a small margin, this is all. If Hillary had won, we would have been a bit more comfortable (or rather, blissful in our own ignorance), because hers is the more familiar status quo (hence less "uncanny") and the more "professional" elite. But at this point in history, neither had the means or willingness to resolve the formidably complex issues facing US capitalism. Sanders had the willingness (but probably not the means), so he was discarded by the Democratic establishment. By doing this, the DP conceded a possible Trump win, but they probably hoped that Trump couldn't survive four years of lies, bullying and ignorance, or, failing that, were sure that even if he did, he could only pave the way for a huge conservative/Democrat victory in 2020. Exactly like the situation in Turkey for the last 15 years. Only, if the DP had studied the events in Turkey a bit better, they could have seen the possibility that Trump might be a keeper, and disrupt and dismantle the status quo in the US without realising that he was doing so.
By the way, this is not something we should be unconditionally cheering about ("Hooray, the US system is going down the drain!) Not because we like the existing status quo, but we, too, are completely unprepared for what is to come. Again, look at Turkey: there is no rational, defendible oppositon to what is happening, because the existing opposition (both from the left and the right) had already conceded to the status quo. Even the far left who seemed to be exteremely critical of it, didn't have a hope that it could be changed or a clue about how it could (and should) change. Now that it is being forcibly changed (for the worse), everybody is paralysed, unable to do anything about it. Let us hope that the Americans are wiser (and luckier) than us.

____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted February 05, 2017 06:15 PM

Umm, what constitutional rights? Foreign citizens living in foreign countries do not have any US constitutional rights. Thus, banning them from coming into the country based on their religion or nationality does not violate the constitution. Some Syrian living in Syria cannot bring a lawsuit and claim his constitutional rights were violated because the US wouldn't allow him entry into the country based on religion or nationality.

Also, to end the "muslism ban" propaganda, barring muslims from entry does not stigmatize a religion, so doesn't violate the first amendment in any way. It doesn't prohibit muslims in the US from practicing their religion.

Btw, one thing surprises me, 6 of the 7 countries on the ban list, which are now so suddenly vocal about Trump ripping apart our family, are themselves banning jews from entering their country, based on their religion. I don't mind having occidental people protesting against the ban, but conveying tons of whining Iranian articles in the main media does not look very right to me.
____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
AlHazin
AlHazin


Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
posted February 05, 2017 06:19 PM

Maybe, but those countries don't ban Jews, they ban Israelis, because in the first place they don't even recognize Israel as a country. It's the position of my country too. So if someone has an Israeli passport, he will be banned indeed. I think the case is different here, because USA recognize those countries, and put in place this ban for protection purposes, mostly from terrorism. While in those countries, like Iran or Syria, we're still in that mentality of 'no deal with Israel'.

You can't ban Jews, just like you can't ban Muslims, because a religion can't be known unless declared. If I don't declare I'm Muslim no one will guess it, if a dude doesn't declare he's a Jew no one will guess it, too. Now if countries conclude the religion of someone out of his nationality, that's another story.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Blizzardboy
Blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted February 05, 2017 06:28 PM
Edited by Blizzardboy at 18:31, 05 Feb 2017.

artu said:
While I agree that words like fascist or racist are very easy to throw around these days and this inflation causes a drastic decrease in their impact, JJ is right on his comment that fascist or authoritarian leaders see constitutional "obstacles" as time wasting details and they rely on the crowds' desire to solve things at once without all the "bureaucratic mumbo jumbo." The Gordion Knot is indeed the perfect metaphor there. So if those "unelected lawyers" base their objection on the constitution, that's the part of a healthy system, not the other way around. The elected can change or modify the constitution with a proper voting process but they can not violate it arbitrarily just because they are elected. That's what the separation of powers is all about and structured upon.


There is a long appeal process before something makes it to the Supreme Court. Trump fighting against a federal judge is the expected countermove that surprised nobody.

And in the US, Supreme Court justices serve a life term despite making decisions that are just as impactful as many legislative decisions. So, in my opinion, any claims that countermanding judges, who I believe enjoy too much privilege in the first place, and claiming it is fascism, is pretty silly. The US is more kritarchy than it ought to be, and judges aren't going to save anybody from fascism, or populist bullying, or whatever you want to call it. Nothing can if it gets strong enough. Right now it's close to a 50/50 split in public opinion, so we aren't yet at that point. If momentum continues to gain and more people adopt Trump's attitude (or attitudes more extreme than Trump) then there will be populist bullying and it will continue until sobering events slap us in the face, and we will then reverse our view, at least until it eventually fades from living memory, which takes many decades.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted February 05, 2017 06:29 PM
Edited by artu at 18:30, 05 Feb 2017.

@Sal

This article has already been shared above. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't looked up the details on why U.S. lawyers and judges find this executive order unconstitutional but that is the exact term they use and I assume they have a legal basis when explicitly using such a word again and again. It doesn't necessarily have to be about the rights of the people coming in from the 7 countries, though, you can also violate the constitution by exceeding  the limits of your authority:

“A president can override the constitution with emergency powers if there is, in fact, an emergency,” she said. “But that means a lot more than the potential that a few people might arrive over here from certain countries.
Trump's courtiers bring chaotic and capricious style to White House

“The 11 September 2001 terrorist attack was an emergency – the president then unilaterally shut down airports and air travel and people couldn’t get into the US for a while.

“[Trump] hasn’t produced evidence about terrorists from these countries trying to enter America. The CIA tracks terrorists all the time, there’s a system for that. And the fact that he is willing to wait … before pursuing an emergency stay again makes you ask what kind of ‘emergency’ is he talking about?”

Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said in a statement on Saturday that Trump seemed intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This Popular Thread is 153 pages long: 1 20 40 60 ... 76 77 78 79 80 ... 100 120 140 153 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1130 seconds