421–430 of 498 posts
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
Most likely response: who the fuck is Ycombinator, and why on earth would I want to work there?
“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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The executive order was backed by the law though. The President does have the powers he exercised, at least, near as I can tell from the US Code cited in the order. I don't necessarily like the order, or how it was carried out, but I'm not sure her actions were justified on the grounds she cited. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu... and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/s…
Aren't many of the objections to the order based on constitutional concerns like depriving people of due process? That would override anything in the US Code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debating with sophomores is about as fruitful as debating with holocaust deniers.
What's more, it seems many sophomoric Trump supporters are Holocaust deniers, from what I see in pro-Trump communities.
Heck, why not just assume most of them?
Because if some Trump supporters are sophomoric and possible Holocaust deniers, why bother paying attention to what any of them say or claim? They're clearly all halfwit racist degenerates who hate women and the LGBTQ crowd. If the world were rid of them, it would be a much better place.
Yes, it's much better this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the analyses i've read, it's inferred from this part of Yates' statement. She called out her role as different to explain why she doesn't agree with the OLC that it's legal. My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question o…
Right, so if I (and many reporters with much experience covering executive orders) read this correctly it was not vetted by the DOJ. It had the correct "formatting" of an executive order, but no check was performed by the OLC on whether it violates standing law. I mean the DHS and other involved departments were also not consulted, so the idea that the DOJ got to weigh in on the legality is pretty strange/implausble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even low level federal officials have an independent duty not to violate peoples' constitutional rights. They can be held personally liable for violating clearly established constitutional law, and following administration policy is not a defense. Usually the "clearly established" part protects the low level folks, but here you could see CBP line agents being held personally liable for excluding green card holders. O…
Indeed - there are limits to the "only following orders" defense. rayiner, I'm curious what you think about Dershowitz' argument that she should have resigned? http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/317...
But I think Dershowitz ignores crucial situational context. He says: "A responsible attorney general would seek to analyze these complex issues before jumping into the political fire with a blanket refusal to defend any part of the order." That's fine and good in theory, but this order was implemented over a weekend with apparently no vetting by the DOJ. It was almost certainly unconstitutional as applied in many situations. And Yates would have to send attorneys into courts to defend the order right now. She did not have the luxury of taking time to figure out what "parts of [the order] are legally defensible."
Remember, contemporaneously with firing Yates, the White House did a 180 on one of the key legal interpretations: that the order applied to green card holders. You do not go into court and advance a legal argument, and then tell the court sometime later "oh, now that we have had a chance to actually analyze these complex legal issues, we were wrong on A, B, and C." As a supervising lawyer, Yates could not tell her subordinates "defend the order for now, but we may have to walk some of this stuff back once we figure out what is actually legal."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't many of the objections to the order based on constitutional concerns like depriving people of due process? That would override anything in the US Code.
Get real. The objections to the order are based exclusively on whether there's an (R) or a (D) next to the President's name. Nothing more. Incredible to see how many people suddenly "care" about the Constitution after 8 years of Obama wiping his feet on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You say what you've mentioned is a reminder of how Clinton wasn't a great candidate as though that's simply a fact that we must recall. However, I (and, I think, others here) have felt that the main criticisms of her were at worst based in complete falsehoods and at best strongly influenced by an overall public mood which was forged by fake news and demagoguery. The weakness of Clinton's candidacy is not an establish…
It may be a tautology, but I would like to define a "great candidate" as one who is able to win the position they're running for. One might argue that it's about how qualified you are for the office, and I have a lot of sympathy for that. I want smart, experienced people to represent me. An essential part of being a great candidate is being able to be elected, not only about how well one would perform in office. So my argument is primarily pragmatic.
Hillary ran for the presidency in 2008 and 2016, losing the Democratic nomination to Obama in 2008, and the 2016 election to Trump. In both cases, Hillary's long experience in politics (which one could argue is an essential part of her qualifications as a good candidate) wasn't enough to overcome other charismatic qualities of her opponents. This has been something that's dogged her for as long as I remember her being involved in national politics.
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the fact that she's a woman has worked against her; I say this not because I think that her being a woman is makes her unfit for office in any way. In the political context of the United States at the time she's run, she needs to be an exceptional candidate to overcome the biases for whom her gender is an issue.
Your points about fake news and demagoguery have some weight. There were way too many distractions during the campaign. That said, an important part of being a great candidate is being able to weather those effectively.
Both Trump and Clinton had record-breaking unfavorable ratings:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-...
You don't get ratings like this as a great candidate.
I don't find these reasons satisfying from the standpoint of "that's how I wish it were". I'm not sure that any of this will be convincing if you believe it comes down to fake news and demagoguery, as you can use those to ultimately excuse any of reasons. Nothing about the entire campaign was satisfying, in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California .
That is a silly argument. You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.