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

401–410 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#401

Post by pm90 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #182
pm90 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? There are many things wrong with the excuse of requiring more vetting: 1. The countries included in the ban have not been responsible for causing damage to the US. The countries w…

>This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later. Bannon has no authority to make immigration policy. The reporting attributes actions to him based on anonymous sources ("American officials"), it's not going by the public record or citing public activity. Given their hostile history with T…

Do you have a point to make, instead of simply disagreeing with fine print? I explained to you why the reasons for the ban are suspicious and why Green Card holders WERE excluded, and you go off on another tangent. Let's stick to the actual facts: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#402

Post by throwaway5752 »

r_smart wrote: post #301
throwaway5752 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a lot of us on both sides of the former partisan political spectrum are wonder what - if any - boundaries Trump supporters have past which they would not defend the actions of this administration.

Speaking for myself, I'm mixed on this particular EO. I don't like the restrictions placed on people who were already determined to be legal residents via green cards / visas whatever. Fortunately, I think that's going to get struck down. So my support of this current EO is mixed. When would I not support him? Had he tried to do something permanent, had he tried to go forward with a ban all Muslims approach. Those bo…

Green cards holders are basically citizens. You can revoke their lawful permanent residence for well-specified (legally) reasons, but while they hold it they are entitled to the full protection of all US law.

People that should have had that protection had their right of habeas corpus violated, one of the most fundamental rights that exists in this country. It was done without the consulation of the legislative branch. It was (and is) continued after it was ruled illegal by the judicial branch.

There isn't any hyperbole here. This is facially fascist. Hopefully it marks a low point and they learn from it.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#403

Post by pm90 »

VLM wrote: post #316
pm90 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't any, and I'm serious about it. Unless Trump does something that is totally and obviously anti-populist, like raise taxes for everyone by 20% or send in the National Guard into a city. It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news.…

"End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats." Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it. A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any oth…

> Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it.

No they did not "start" anything. And lets not even get into the whole business of who started what. Its true that liberals do find racist xenophobes deplorable. Its true that liberals do find people who try to impose restrictions on the rights of anyone in the community for their reproductive rights, sexual preferences and gender identification to be deplorable.

> A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any other political spin is fake news, it just means its dominant in the legacy media, which is rapidly losing influence, leading to people not under single party control gaining leadership positions...

They are NOT aligned with Democratic party. They are aligned with reason and facts and are pretty fearless about reporting on those.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#404

Post by LordKano »

mkaziz wrote: post #368
LordKano wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the President and the AG serve at the pleasure of the People of the United States, and Trump is about to find that out the hard way. Trump has the support of roughly half of the country. Regardless of how loud the opposition is, don't confuse their passion for widespread support.

Slightly less than half the country _that voted_* this past election. That's not close to half the country

The part of the country that votes is the only one of any consequence to any elected official.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#405

Post by cookiecaper »

davidw wrote: post #393
cookiecaper wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review? Their theory is that travel needs to be temporarily halted to ensure that insufficient vetting procedures do not allow any terrorists to sneak in while the review is ongoing. You may agree or disagree that that's a real/substantial threat, but there is valid reasoning behind suspending travel.

There isn't valid reasoning though: if you look at what actually kills people in the US, those people who get in after vetting pose virtually no threat. Toddlers with guns, and falling out of bed kill more Americans than people from those countries have in the US. It's a Muslim ban, plain and simple. It's not about our security.

As others have pointed out in this thread, if it's a "Muslim ban", it's a "Muslim ban" that bans less than 5% of the worldwide Muslim population, and leaves untouched the 5 countries with the largest Muslim populations. That doesn't sound like a very effective "Muslim ban" to me.

Logically, when compared with what's actually happened, it makes much more sense to interpret Mr. Trump's comments that specifically mentioned barring Muslims from entering the U.S. as hyperbolic campaign statements.

Whatever intentions you wish to thrust upon American officials, the fact is that the Order makes a valid security-based argument and contains no religious test. Those are the facts. We can't argue over the intentions of someone neither of us has ever met, but we can discuss the text of the Order in question.

It's possible for reasonable people to disagree with the Trump administration's arguments, to be sure. But that's not justification for subverting the law, nor is it justification for the DoJ to undermine the president and prevent the executive branch from making a case for itself in the forthcoming judicial challenges, as Ms. Yates was doing.

In a democracy, we implicitly accept that there will be some successes and some failures, and that we are bound to live under the laws we dislike as much as the laws we favor. If we lose mutual respect sufficient to live with those compromises, we are in big trouble.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#406

Post by grey-area »

cookiecaper wrote: post #389
grey-area wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he wants violates the law: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" not what he did (the EO), which debatable in terms of legality, the EO could be legal as the president has a lot of power on immigration, though the former AG thinks not. Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump s…

>Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter. You say this like there's something bad about it, first. There are lots of Trump supporters, or at least Trump voters, and their opinions have every potential to be valid. What's the point of this political shame game? It only hurts your position overall and suc…

Apologies for being off-hand or derisive, it wasn't meant in that spirit, nor to shame you, it was in the context of your claim of neutrality further downthread. My side certainly is not Clinton/Obama/Democrats, but I don't agree with Trump and am concerned about him as president after the first week.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#407

Post by r_smart »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #402
r_smart wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for myself, I'm mixed on this particular EO. I don't like the restrictions placed on people who were already determined to be legal residents via green cards / visas whatever. Fortunately, I think that's going to get struck down. So my support of this current EO is mixed. When would I not support him? Had he tried to do something permanent, had he tried to go forward with a ban all Muslims approach. Those bo…

Green cards holders are basically citizens. You can revoke their lawful permanent residence for well-specified (legally) reasons, but while they hold it they are entitled to the full protection of all US law. People that should have had that protection had their right of habeas corpus violated, one of the most fundamental rights that exists in this country. It was done without the consulation of the legislative branc…

From my first comment:

|I don't like the restrictions placed on people who were already determined to be legal residents via green cards / visas whatever.

Why argue with me about it if I agree with you that it's bad? Also, as I understand, it's been removed anyway.

|There isn't any hyperbole here. This is facially fascist.

I know this is just another way of saying 'literally Hitler', but it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.[0]

[0]: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#408

Post by davidw »

cookiecaper wrote: post #405
davidw wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't valid reasoning though: if you look at what actually kills people in the US, those people who get in after vetting pose virtually no threat. Toddlers with guns, and falling out of bed kill more Americans than people from those countries have in the US. It's a Muslim ban, plain and simple. It's not about our security.

As others have pointed out in this thread, if it's a "Muslim ban", it's a "Muslim ban" that bans less than 5% of the worldwide Muslim population, and leaves untouched the 5 countries with the largest Muslim populations. That doesn't sound like a very effective "Muslim ban" to me. Logically, when compared with what's actually happened, it makes much more sense to interpret Mr. Trump's comments that specifically mentio…

There's both a religious test and no valid security argument. Absolutely none.

https://twitter.com/FT/status/826470867945283584

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#410

Post by rc_bhg »

zzleeper wrote: post #78
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."

From news.istambulcombinator.com.tr , circa 2012 : >Respectfully, can we maintain the ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News? Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here. HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame t…

> Sure, we can close our ears

Eh? I read new in plenty of other places. This is supposed to be news kept to tech topics.

Post reply on HN