351–360 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California .
Is California not part of the United States?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of that may be true, but it's still valid to point out the popular vote discrepancy as a response to the claim that the American people chose Trump. As an American voter who opposed Trump during the election, I feel especially entitled to do so in response to someone who criticizes us as being "stupid" for having done something that many of us don't feel responsible for having done. Indeed, if further evidence su…
I completely understand where you're coming from. I also know that phrasing it the way you have, without any additional context, very often results in semantic, distracting discussions like those that followed, distracting from the very valid point you're making. When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't just read it, I watched it. I heard it from his own mouth. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298 Let's put this in context Donald Trump's quote: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Or the wording on his website: https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-cont…
Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States They did a pretty bad job then. The vast majority of Muslims don't live in those 7 countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obama used Executive Orders because in part he had a Congress that, courtesy of Mitch McConnell, stated openly that they had no intention of passing Bills on the President's behalf, even if good. So? Mr. Obama's executive orders were in many cases inconsistent with the law and the Constitution. 'They won't be nice to me!' is insufficient reason for any president to violate his oath of office, whether Mr. Bush, Mr.…
Please point to Obama's EOs that have been shown (or even suspected) to be unconstitutional. It's hard to find without being bombarded with partisan opinion pieces or quotes to Trump threatening to strike down "unconstitutional EOs"
However, the 5th Circuit's ruling [1] includes this language:
>the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.
DAPA was, from its inception, widely recognized as illegal and it lost at every stage of the judicial process. Obama signed it knowing it would probably get struck down. Yet, Ms. Yates did not see a constitutional obligation to assume the judiciary's function to interpret constitutionality and legality as it related to these orders. Curious that.
[0] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-t...
[1] http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she is unable to faithfully discharge her duty to execute U.S. law, she should resign. She offers no argument to support her claim that the order was not lawful, other than her self-evident personal disagreement. Do you know of a credible legal argument that the president is not allowed to issue instructions to the Department of Homeland Security via executive order? Ms. Yates apparently does, but she doesn't wish…
> There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background. This is false. It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities". Wikipedia: "After the resumption of USRAP, refugee applications will be prioritized based on religion-based persecutions only in the case that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in that country."
That doesn't make his EO illegal, and doesn't contradict the commenters statement.
The exception for religious minorities is clear: they are targeted in genocidal acts.
Christians, Yazidis and others face acutely disproportionate and targeted violence because of their religion - so in this case, it's warranted.
The Yazidis in particular, faced outright genocide - ISIS came for them, killed the men, took the women and children into slavery, those that could flee, fled.
The are a persecuted minority group, and I don't think anyone would question the need there.
Governments around the world including the US make special arrangements for persecuted minority groups - I don't think anyone has a problem with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't do better than name-calling with a flat-earther, I don't know what to tell you.
My point is that facts do nothing to those that are committed to fiction. Presenting facts or debating gives their position legitimacy. Better to just dismiss lunacy with a pejorative term and move along.
From Sam Altman on Twitter: ".@SallyQYates, @ycombinator and many others would be delighted to give you a job and resources to continue your work defending American law." https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160
Why is Sam dragging Ycombinator into this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
8 USC §1182(f) which states in part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may…
The National Review's article basically boils down to "well, we found this section that allows suspending entry of some people, and even though there's another section explicitly forbidding doing this stuff based on national origin we're going to say he has essentially unlimited power to do whatever he wants". Meanwhile the federal judge who ordered the stay thinks theress a strong likelihood that the order is either…
The oath of office should only be invoked for the most facially plain constitutional violations. If there's a question, we have a judicial system established to settle that. We can't just have random people arbitrarily declaring their opinion that X and Y are "probably invalid" and then redirecting the nation's legal apparatus based on that.