491–498 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is California not part of the United States?
It will eventually rejoin the US. But for now it is politically vastly different. The EC served its purpose in containing CA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claimed you didn't want to get into the details as you weren't "qualified" but you seem to be posting alot of the same points from people who want to believe the administration is completely blameless at this. Which is simply not the case. To go over this point by point: 1) Your point on it being "the Judiciaries" role is just plain wrong. Officers of the government, just like officers in the military have discre…
>Your point on it being "the Judiciaries" role is just plain wrong. Officers of the government, just like officers in the military have discretion about following illegal orders. You are technically correct that there is an element of obligation and personal responsibility to refuse to carry out wholly unconscionable orders (i.e., orders that would fundamentally violate the constitutional oath of office), but bear in…
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.
Trump will find that that support dwindles day by day. The country has always been split roughly down the middle between conservatives and liberals, and liberals are generally united against Trump. What happens when his conservative base starts dwindling as he institutes more and more measures which run counter to both conscience and conservative principles?
Irrelevant. Trump was elected, he was appointed a couple of weeks ago, and he is in charge.
No one invented "support dwindles" comments when Obana's popularity was scraping rock bottom.
Furthermore, while Trump was in fact elected in a democratic election, the Attourney General was not. The Attourney General has no standing to deny a lawful order by the president.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump will find that that support dwindles day by day. The country has always been split roughly down the middle between conservatives and liberals, and liberals are generally united against Trump. What happens when his conservative base starts dwindling as he institutes more and more measures which run counter to both conscience and conservative principles?
> Trump will find that that support dwindles day by day. Irrelevant. Trump was elected, he was appointed a couple of weeks ago, and he is in charge. No one invented "support dwindles" comments when Obana's popularity was scraping rock bottom. Furthermore, while Trump was in fact elected in a democratic election, the Attourney General was not. The Attourney General has no standing to deny a lawful order by the preside…
Yes, they did. I mean, just googling "Obama support dwindles" falsifies that claim (even if a lot of the early hits are about Clinton in the last election); there's quite a lot from the right doing just what you claim no one did, foing back to at least 2010 in what I get on the first two pages of results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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."
" It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities"." 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 genocid…
Yes, it does. The executive order "singles people out" based on their religion.
It doesn't matter what the motive is (and I think your take on the motive is naive, but that's beside the point).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero (0) Americans in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and the end of 2015 (as opposed to say Saudi Arabia). b) See a) above c) The deliberate effect was immediately sending back green card holders and dual-citizens arriving at the border, this is wrong, both morally and pragmatically (damages US standing and the value of citizenship). d) See the large world…
Right, I understand some of the arguments in favor or against. But I haven't researched enough to develop a firm opinion. Do you expect these one-sentence summaries of the liberal position to change that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities"." 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 genocid…
> doesn't contradict the commenters statement. Yes, it does. The executive order "singles people out" based on their religion. It doesn't matter what the motive is (and I think your take on the motive is naive, but that's beside the point).