Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#131

Post by Retra »

mikekchar wrote: post #96
jbyers wrote: post #73

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."

I agree. It appears as though shocking political news stories are going to be the norm in the short to mid term. As interesting as they are and as useful as it is to discuss things with a sensible crowd like HN, I fear that the focus will inevitably be pulled away from the main topic at hand. There are lots of other venues to discuss these issue if one so wishes.

Which venues would you suggest?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#132

Post by sremani »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
sremani wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of many feeds of information for me, and I assume for most of us. Currently, all my other feeds are overly politicized. Yes, I have a political opinion and understand the need for discourse, but we are currently in a hyper-partisan political cycle and in which there is no winner. The gap is so wide, it is hard for one group to engage the other. So now all we get in these "political discussions" is hyper v…

> This is not the time for discussion, because in our minds the battle lines are drawn. Yes, and discussion can make those battle lines disappear by finding common ground if possible and if not possible it will at least help assess how far the damage from all this bs can spread. Sticking your head in the ground is not going to make the problem go away, in fact might make it fractionally worse. On another note, in the…

As a Green Card holder in US, who has put the papers for naturalization a month ago, I guarantee you, I have more skin in the game than most people here.

>Because it's too much trouble to not click on links about subjects you wish were not discussed?

The weakness is thoroughly mine.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#133

Post by cookiecaper »

disantlor wrote: post #81
cookiecaper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump…

any what exactly does this EO accomplish? just because Obama identified countries as a potential threat doesn't necessitate that we be recklessly suspicious of anyone who comes from them. it's disingenuous to say it's just a"step forward" by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.

>any what exactly does this EO accomplish?

I mean, is there some mystery to this? The EO explicitly states its purpose in its text. It gives the Trump administration time to evaluate the procedures used to vet nationals from these hotbeds of terrorist activity. Are you concerned that it doesn't do this, or do you simply not agree that this is a worthwhile thing to do?

>by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.

It's not White House spin. Green card holders were never banned. The media falsely reported a statement from a DHS spokesperson, literally not even quoting a full sentence, to try to cause a panic (and they obviously succeeded). After a few hours, they were forced to fix their erroneous reporting when the White House began issuing corrections (that wouldn't have been needed if the media hadn't intentionally misconstrued the story in the first place).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#134

Post by kelukelugames »

danso wrote: post #80
danhak wrote: post #45

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter…

I think Thiel overall was right, in that Trump would still be liked by his base even if he didn't build a literal wall. By talking about the wall, Trump was signaling his priorities, and his base were just happy to have someone who they felt had the right priorities, whether or not a literal wall would get built. I think Thiel just didn't think Trump would go through with it after winning, because he thinks Trump wou…

I think Thiel was right too, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing and that real people are not harmed.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#135

Post by rohshall »

Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#136

Post by disantlor »

bonyt wrote: post #65

For the curious, the line of succession for AG after deputy goes: 1. U.S. Atty for E. D. Virgina (Now the current acting AG) 2. U.S. Atty for D. Minnesota 3. U.S. Atty for D. Arizona Interestingly, this is set by executive order so it may be changeable - though limited to those eligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, I think. (And I guess we can argue all day over the constitutionality of that under…

interestingly there seems to be a new executive order 13762, from the final days of the obama whitehouse, that changed the Justice Department order of succession, yet Trump seems to have followed the order that you mentioned/linked

saw a tweet raising this point after having just read your comment. not sure what it means but thought your comment was very interesting, so... here's some more detail.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#137

Post by cookiecaper »

zzleeper wrote: post #82
cookiecaper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump…

Do you really believe what you posted? If tomorrow he says something to disprove one of your points, you will further twist your argument to somehow appears as if he is still doing the right thing. I don't think anyone but yourself can convince you of what is really going on.

I have no position on whether or not President Trump's order is "the right thing". I am merely saying that he is seriously, but not literally, fulfilling the promises he made during the campaign. That's what the comment I was replying to was discussing. Trump has not literally banned Muslims, nor has he literally begun construction on a wall that rivals the Great Wall of China (and indications are that he doesn't intend something so permanent/marring, but that he does intend to build a secure perimeter along the southern border).

If tomorrow he does literally fulfill some promises, that's probably fine, as surely some promises were literal (maybe the ones about government-paid child care?).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#138

Post by mwpmaybe »

cookiecaper wrote: post #127
mwpmaybe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am merely pointing out the flaw in your argument that the Trump administration's order is in any way acceptable simply because they're working off the same list of countries that the Obama administration used for a past order.

I fail to see the flaw. Many people are pretending that Trump explicitly selected these countries because they didn't interfere with his business interests, or that he selected them specifically because they are home to many Muslims (in fact, the nations with the 5 largest Muslim populations are totally unaffected by the order). The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously…

You are clearly 10x smarter than I am, but I wish you would use your powers for good.

Yes, it was clever of then to use the list, because it gives them the cover to do whatever they want to do, knowing full well that people like you and Andrew McCarthy of the National Review would defend their actions using this argument. You must be able see the difference between what the Obama administration did in 2015 and the Trump administration is attempting to do today. The fact that the two orders involve the same seven countries in both cases is irrelevant.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#139

Post by mr_spothawk »

jbyers wrote: post #73

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."

While I agree that I don't want Hacker Political News to be "a thing", this is one of the very few places that I feel I can get reasoned discussion about immediately important (to me) news. I'm incredibly interested in the views of the rest of the community.

That said, I'm trying to keep the politics out of my own posts and comments...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#140

Post by Retra »

nikdaheratik wrote: post #121
rphlx wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was fired for outright refusing to do her job [1], encouraging her subordinates to the same, and for going public about it. [1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"

No, her job is to help follow the laws of the country, not to do whatever the President says. The President is not a dictator or a CEO.

The president is a CEO. He is quite literally the chief officer of the executive branch.

Though he is a CEO of a public entity. Something I'm pretty sure he has no experience with.

Post reply on HN