301–310 of 460 posts
I'm really speechless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).
According to the Brookings Institution memo on the Emoluments Clause[1]: > if Mr. Trump enters office in what would obviously constitute a knowing and indeed intentional violation of the Emoluments Clause and then declines to cure that violation during his tenure, Congress would be well within its rights to impeach him for engaging in “high crimes and misdemeanors.” So, it is conceivable that he could be removed with…
Ultimately, all that matters is whether Congress decides to do it. If they do, then it happens. If they don't, it doesn't. The specific offenses and wording of the Constitution will no doubt matter when it comes to how the individual members of Congress think about the issue, but no more than that. In particular, it doesn't really matter what the Constitution says or how a judge would interpret it, only how the various members of Congress understand it, or choose to interpret it.
I think it's fairly likely to happen, in any case. He and Congress don't see eye to eye on many things, and it may not take too long at all before he pisses them off sufficiently to have them get fed up with it. I imagine they'd rather be dealing with Pence anyway.
I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future…
I'm Iranian, but born in the US, work in immigration and can connect you with excellent people (Iranian too) in Australia who can help you walk through all of this.
Even if you get into the US for your PhD program, you face a tangled web to actually achieve a green card, and that was before Trump.
Holy shit: > U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United States may be barred from reentry. That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts. There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say much more than I'm sorry. Remember: Donald Trump does not represent the will of the American people. He won the electoral college, but around 2.8 million more people voted for Clinton than voted for him. He does not represent our values, our morals, or our view of where the country should be going. He represents those straight white males who don't want to adapt to the future, who don't want to give up th…
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't see why you had to bring sexuality and ethnic background into it. I myself don't fit into the group that you specified, but I can still see that it is a stupid classification. Our opinions and beliefs are not reliant on what group we are categorised into. Edit: I'm not a trump supporter.
In short, read the entire statement, not just three words.
What I don't get is, it is obviously against everything we stand for and for sure not in line with our constitution to discriminate based on religion. After all, religious freedom was one of the reasons they founded our country. Given all of that I don't understand why we can't sue? Take this to the Supreme Court? They didn't use any religion in the executive action but it is so clearly targeted at one individual rel…
The argument that it's clearly targeted at one individual religion doesn't stick that well. If that were true there were a lot of countries that are predominantly Muslim that were left off the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country Arguing a racial thing is a bit difficult as well as there were plenty of Arab countries that were left out. An interesting commonality is this: "What all seven countries als…
Similarly, I have no expectation that I would ever be able to, for example, travel to another country on "vacation" and just stay indefinitely after my visa expired. I would never think that would fly. I fully expect that at some point I would be facing either serious charges or a quick deportation, possibly with the stipulation that I was never allowed to return - or that violating the visa a second time would mean a jail sentence. Yet here in America, that's just people "trying to live the American dream", rules and laws be damned. Violating the sovereignty of a nation should always be taken seriously.
It's amazing that some nations are deemed terrorist by American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century. Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan, installing Shah in Iran, toppling Saddam Hussein, Indirectly funding terrorism in Kashmir, and all the mess in South America. What's the best guess ? 10 million inn…
Firebombing was far worse. Dresden alone was about equivalent or worse than a-bombs, right? And Japan had been firebombed pretty heavily as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of all Muslims" then I have no doubts people would start protesting immediately. That's why it doesn't say that. You start with seven countries, then add five more ("I didn't protest the first seven, why would I protest five?") then a few more, and pretty soon, you got all Muslim countries. It's barely been a week and it's already seven, I imag…
If he adds more, then that's a different situation. Right now is all I know. I'm not going to assume the worst until Trump actually displays a pattern of behavior. One of the things I noticed is you passed over the people who are responsible for implementing and reporting to the President on this: Tillerson and Mattis. Neither of these men is anything remotely close to a Nazi. Mattis has far too much integrity, Tille…
I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me: > To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first. I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years Actually mass protests to the level of e.g. the French May of 68 might very well bring down a government. But that is for a determined population.
Except in France, May 68, De Gaulle (conservatist) wasn't ousted, he even came back in favourable position after 3 days off the grid: He threatened to use the État d'Urgence against the strikers, dissolved the Assembly and the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favour. People, at the end, voted for security.
That's probably why the protests didn't work. People in power are incredibly well informed and can predict those things reasonably well.