American Politics

[Onyx Darkmatter]

This just in: the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals just blocked the Ban from being reinstated, and Donald Trump is having a meltdown of a Snowflake.

 

[shionoro]

Poor little donald. You are president now and they still won't respect you.
You should see those judges.

 

[Philia]

They never played it fair, they tried to screw Trump during the primaries but he was too popular for it to work.

They didn't want Trump a d tried to stop him. But didn't do anything unfair. While on the other sides Hillary had so many delegates even before a single vote was cast.

 

[M3J]

From what I've read, they tried to sabotage him or something, but they failed. Unfair stuff happened.

 

[Philia]

This just in: the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals just blocked the Ban from being reinstated, and Donald Trump is having a meltdown of a Snowflake.

I wonder what the Supreme court would do.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I wonder what the Supreme court would do.

Well, with the 9th currently vacant, I don't think the Supreme Court will happen anytime soon (unless Trump's Judge pick is immediately instated).

 

[Styx]

What I want to understand is how the 9th Circuit could rule against it given 8 U.S. Code 1182? Clearly the president has the power to do this,r ight? So can someone here explain this whole mess for me please? I'm without tv so I'm completely lost on updates and I hate digging through main stream media like CNN and Fox.

 

[shionoro]

What I want to understand is how the 9th Circuit could rule against it given 8 U.S. Code 1182? Clearly the president has the power to do this,r ight? So can someone here explain this whole mess for me please? I'm without tv so I'm completely lost on updates and I hate digging through main stream media like CNN and Fox.

So you think that some anonymous person on a mangaboard is more reliable as a newssource than actual journalists who can be held accountable for lying?

In any case, this is the complete reasoning of the judges: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...-9th-circuits-opinion-on-the-travel-ban/2327/

 

[kkck]

What I want to understand is how the 9th Circuit could rule against it given 8 U.S. Code 1182? Clearly the president has the power to do this,r ight? So can someone here explain this whole mess for me please? I'm without tv so I'm completely lost on updates and I hate digging through main stream media like CNN and Fox.

From what I gather (though my understanding of the whole here is a still a bit limited, I am still figuring out the details of this myself) the situation ended up being resolved by the lack of evidence of any of the countries in the ban being involved in terrorist attacks at the US. Trump was asked to present evidence that people from the countries in question presented a risk to the US and he failed at that. So you have trump saying those muslim majority countries are a risk to the US, god knows how many people who actually should be allowed to enter the US being unable to enter, and the simple fact that terrorists so far are not from those countries (rather, terrorists seem to come from Egypt, saudi arabia and Afghanistan so far and even iran merely funds it elsewhere rather than do it themselves). Basically they called him a dumbass.

Now, a bit that has to be considered here is that given the reasons trump has been denied it is not impossible, IMO, for him to eventually get something done in regards to his so called muslim ban. He just has to gather everyone in his cabinet to have the equivalent brainpower of a single functional neuron, and for once in their life not be morons. If he includes countries that are actually involved in terrorism and the stuff he says does not reek of xenophobia the moment they start presenting it then he could actually get it done. Now, the issue would be whether he actually would even want a muslim ban that actually includes the countries he could get a ban on and whether such a thing would even be to the benefit of the US.

 

[shionoro]

Basically, it is this (from the link, page 25):

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the
Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was
intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument,
the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by
the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban”
as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive
Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b)
and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of
purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be
considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection
Clause claims.

They see a good chance that it can be ruled that this ban is targetted on a certain religious minority, which is against the law and thus they are not going to reinstate the ban until a higher ruling clarifies whether it does or does not target muslims exclusively.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 10, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 10, 2017 ---

Now, a bit that has to be considered here is that given the reasons trump has been denied it is not impossible, IMO, for him to eventually get something done in regards to his so called muslim ban. He just has to gather everyone in his cabinet to have the equivalent brainpower of a single functional neuron, and for once in their life not be morons. If he includes countries that are actually involved in terrorism and the stuff he says does not reek of xenophobia the moment they start presenting it then he could actually get it done. Now, the issue would be whether he actually would even want a muslim ban that actually includes the countries he could get a ban on and whether such a thing would even be to the benefit of the US.

If trump would actually only include countries with high potential for harboring ISIS or Al Qaida terrorists, exclude greencard holders and other subgroups from the ban and reasoned with halfway decent points that a temporal ban until ISIS is defeated and the refugee wave is under control makes sense, then he probably would be able to pull through with it.

But any ban that does NOT include Saudi Arabia (and trump would never include them) can, in my opinion, easily be attacked because that is the place a lot of actual terrorists came from and from which a good chunk of their ideology came.

Similarly, 9/11 terrorist mohammed atta came from egypt which is nowhere to be found on the ban.

There are more than enough reasons to show that the point of 'security risk' is a farce and if the court sees it the same way, they will probably not allow it.

 

[Styx]

From what I gather (though my understanding of the whole here is a still a bit limited, I am still figuring out the details of this myself) the situation ended up being resolved by the lack of evidence of any of the countries in the ban being involved in terrorist attacks at the US. Trump was asked to present evidence that people from the countries in question presented a risk to the US and he failed at that. So you have trump saying those muslim majority countries are a risk to the US, god knows how many people who actually should be allowed to enter the US being unable to enter, and the simple fact that terrorists so far are not from those countries (rather, terrorists seem to come from Egypt, saudi arabia and Afghanistan so far and even iran merely funds it elsewhere rather than do it themselves). Basically they called him a dumbass.

Now, a bit that has to be considered here is that given the reasons trump has been denied it is not impossible, IMO, for him to eventually get something done in regards to his so called muslim ban. He just has to gather everyone in his cabinet to have the equivalent brainpower of a single functional neuron, and for once in their life not be morons. If he includes countries that are actually involved in terrorism and the stuff he says does not reek of xenophobia the moment they start presenting it then he could actually get it done. Now, the issue would be whether he actually would even want a muslim ban that actually includes the countries he could get a ban on and whether such a thing would even be to the benefit of the US.

I see, thank you! So his problem, basically, was that he didn't think about the setup and the execution of this order? He should have anticipated that people would ask for reasoning behind the travel suspension, especially since some of the countries included are strange when SA and Egypt were not included (having a 2015 compiled list by the previous administration should not have been enough to deter him from trying...).

So you think that some anonymous person on a mangaboard is more reliable as a newssource than actual journalists who can be held accountable for lying?

In any case, this is the complete reasoning of the judges: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...-9th-circuits-opinion-on-the-travel-ban/2327/

Honestly? I trust you guys more than I trust the turds in main stream media, yea, because they've lied and lied time and time again, and nothing comes of it (though obviously I would have looked at links either way, I just said I didn't want to dig through them). They're all scum through and through.

 

[kkck]

So apparently trump backed down from the Taiwan thing. That lasted way less than I thought it would (not that I followed that story too much though). So much for the tough negotiator.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I'd say it's a good thing that Trump backed out on "re-negotiating" the One-China Policy. Just imagine the tensions he could've created between the U.S and China had things got out-of-hand.

 

[kkck]

I'd say it's a good thing that Trump backed out on "re-negotiating" the One-China Policy. Just imagine the tensions he could've created between the U.S and China had things got out-of-hand.

Maybe it is for the best.... I am not sure on whether something could come out of this at all to be honest. In the end, it kinda looks like trump backed down from that like a bitch with it's tail between its legs. I guess the trump-china saga is still a story in progress....

Crackpot theory here: Trump assumed he could make china into his bitch because of how his businesses with it worked. As a businessman he would go to china for the manufacturing of his clothing line and whatnot and whatever he demanded he got. He is dealing with manufacturers who have plenty of competition so he got to set the terms. So he assumed that is how things regularly worked with chinese folk including the government. Now he is dealing with the chinese government and he just found out those guys don't give a fuck and there also aren't 11000 chinas he can choose between when negotiating.

 

[James Rye]

A trade war between USA and China could still happen if Trump does impose some of the import taxes on chinese products. Though that kinda trade war would end up hurting both of them and with that the rest of the world as well. The EU is currently preparing for the case of a trade war with USA, starting contacts with Mexico, India and other countries in case of Trump and his team really trying to bring the EU down.

 

[M3J]

I don't understand how anyone can claim to be a patriot or American and still support Trump

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Maybe it is for the best.... I am not sure on whether something could come out of this at all to be honest. In the end, it kinda looks like trump backed down from that like a bitch with it's tail between its legs. I guess the trump-china saga is still a story in progress....

Well, I mean, it does help lessen up the tensions for now, but that sure made a huge embarrassment towards us. I'm sure he'll find a way to piss off China sooner or later...


In other news Alternative Pictures:

 

[Styx]

I don't understand how anyone can claim to be a patriot or American and still support Trump

And they can't understand how people who don't support Trump could call themselves American or a patriot. Many Americans define the two very differently.

 

[shionoro]

Honestly? I trust you guys more than I trust the turds in main stream media, yea, because they've lied and lied time and time again, and nothing comes of it (though obviously I would have looked at links either way, I just said I didn't want to dig through them). They're all scum through and through.

I would question your logic here.
There are reliable media. The US is still a free country which has valuable journalists working at different newspapers and TV stations.

A journalist may have an opinion and if he dislikes a certain politician he is allowed to make negative articles about him, but there is a clean cut between opinion and factual coverage, and mostly, there are reliable news outlets which will not lie to you in their coverage or make up things OR, if they do an honest mistake, rectify it.

I hear the claim that, for example, CNN lied about Donald Trump quite often (and let me clarify: No CNN is nota very good source because as private TV channel, it does focus on ratings and Gossip quite a lot, but it will still not deny facts or give 'alternative truths').
But noone could ever show me where they did (aside from celebrity news gossip, but not in politics).
I heard people call CNN liars because they said Trump made racist remarks about Mexicans and some people didn't find it racist what he said.
But that is not a lie, that is, at worst, an opinion about trump that is not shared (after all, what is racism is debateable), but at least he actually made those remarks and, when asked, CNN points to exactly what they mean so you can make up your mind about it.

That is a big difference to completely made up things like Kellyanne Conway's the bowling green massacre (of which many Trump supporters actually still think that it is real).
If CNN pulled shit like that they could and would be held responsible for it or at least i would agree that it is a source that cannot be trusted, but they do not.
There would be no reason to assume that CNN (just as an example, there are obviously many reliable outlets) would lie to you about a thing like the ruling in the case we have talked about.

I find it highly problematic to devalue the work of professional journalists who work oftentimes with high ethical standards for coverage, because that is exactly what gives rise to 'alternative truths' and people who will believe lies if it suits them.

Support for actual journalists working for newspapers is very important in a democracy.

 

[Styx]

I would question your logic here.
There are reliable media. The US is still a free country which has valuable journalists working at different newspapers and TV stations.

A journalist may have an opinion and if he dislikes a certain politician he is allowed to make negative articles about him, but there is a clean cut between opinion and factual coverage, and mostly, there are reliable news outlets which will not lie to you in their coverage or make up things OR, if they do an honest mistake, rectify it.

I hear the claim that, for example, CNN lied about Donald Trump quite often (and let me clarify: No CNN is nota very good source because as private TV channel, it does focus on ratings and Gossip quite a lot, but it will still not deny facts or give 'alternative truths').
But noone could ever show me where they did (aside from celebrity news gossip, but not in politics).
I heard people call CNN liars because they said Trump made racist remarks about Mexicans and some people didn't find it racist what he said.
But that is not a lie, that is, at worst, an opinion about trump that is not shared (after all, what is racism is debateable), but at least he actually made those remarks and, when asked, CNN points to exactly what they mean so you can make up your mind about it.

That is a big difference to completely made up things like Kellyanne Conway's the bowling green massacre (of which many Trump supporters actually still think that it is real).
If CNN pulled shit like that they could and would be held responsible for it or at least i would agree that it is a source that cannot be trusted, but they do not.
There would be no reason to assume that CNN (just as an example, there are obviously many reliable outlets) would lie to you about a thing like the ruling in the case we have talked about.

I find it highly problematic to devalue the work of professional journalists who work oftentimes with high ethical standards for coverage, because that is exactly what gives rise to 'alternative truths' and people who will believe lies if it suits them.

Support for actual journalists working for newspapers is very important in a democracy.

Please do not twist my words. I said I had a problem with certain sites/media, not opinion pieces, which speaking on live television and reporting on something as news is not an opinion piece. So I'm not "devaluing" journalists, but certain ones, which should happen when they show their true colors. CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC (fake images of Trump etc), NBC etc are all dishonest, unethical morons who would just as easily push false stories without evidence (Assange is a pedo, Hillary was shot at while at Bosnia, there are no violent left riots, Ben Carson was violent as a kid, CNN lying about debate results (poor Bernie), rigging debates etc) as they would directly lie to people.

CNN would be held responsible for their actions? What CNN have you been watching the last 8 years? They only recently have been called out at large for their garbage and that's largely because Trump won (and wikileaks). If you want to learn more about CNN's problems, for example, go to their controversies wikipedia page. That's just some of the stuff people can't ignore and have to record. They are about as dishonest as anyone can get, but it is ignored so people don't believe it happens.

I'll support journalists, so long as they are not lying scum with agendas to push. That kind of journalism is not welcomed and will never help a democracy like ours, just undermine it. You can feel free to watch their bs and support their corrupt and dishonest values and agendas, but I won't be apart of that.