sqwatch Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Russian considering giving Snowden to trump as a gift, akin to a bottle of fine Russian vodka.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-eyes-sending-snowden-u-s-gift-trump-official-n718921Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Lord Ratner Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 I find it sad that the stereotypical Trump supporter being a red-blooded, rough-and-tumble, non-PC, Chevy Duramax Texas Edition driving, military and freedom loving dude is apparently the least willing of everyone to accept the risk that comes along with living in a free society.I get what you're saying, but in this particular instance (foreigner travel ban), how are Americans' freedoms being diminished? 1
tk1313 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Forget about the ban and just send everyone to California. They seem a little confused about the contents of the Constitution anyways. 2
Mark1 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said: I get what you're saying, but in this particular instance (foreigner travel ban), how are Americans' freedoms being diminished? They aren't. But I would argue that the Constitution and what it represents goes beyond the letter of law that it establishes. There's a spirit of the law that's just as important. If you have enough time and money you can get a lawyer to write up legal justification for just about anything. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's probably not a good idea to turn away an infant attempting to enter the U.S. for life saving surgery just because they happened to fall out of their mother's vagina while she was on Iranian soil. It's probably not a good idea to abandon a guy who put his life on the line in Iraq to aid U.S. operations there as an interpreter. Despite the fact that you can probably legally justify doing so and none of them are explicitly afforded protection under the Constitution as non-citizens. If the last 15 years have been any indication, you can legally justify holding people in an offshore military prison indefinitely without charge or any method for adjudication, presumably for the rest of their life given that the "end of hostilities" in this vague thing we call the "war on terrorism" isn't ever going to come. That doesn't mean the whole idea of it isn't an affront to the Constitution, regardless of whether the Constitution applies to them in the strictest legal interpretation or not. And no, I'm not suggesting we turn them all free. I'm suggesting that the spirit of the Constitution frowns upon operating prisons as if they were out of the Count of Monte Cristo, even if it doesn't involve infringing on U.S. citizen's rights.
Prozac Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Mark1 said: They aren't. But I would argue that the Constitution and what it represents goes beyond the letter of law that it establishes. There's a spirit of the law that's just as important. If you have enough time and money you can get a lawyer to write up legal justification for just about anything. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's probably not a good idea to turn away an infant attempting to enter the U.S. for life saving surgery just because they happened to fall out of their mother's vagina while she was on Iranian soil. It's probably not a good idea to abandon a guy who put his life on the line in Iraq to aid U.S. operations there as an interpreter. Despite the fact that you can probably legally justify doing so and none of them are explicitly afforded protection under the Constitution as non-citizens. If the last 15 years have been any indication, you can legally justify holding people in an offshore military prison indefinitely without charge or any method for adjudication, presumably for the rest of their life given that the "end of hostilities" in this vague thing we call the "war on terrorism" isn't ever going to come. That doesn't mean the whole idea of it isn't an affront to the Constitution, regardless of whether the Constitution applies to them in the strictest legal interpretation or not. And no, I'm not suggesting we turn them all free. I'm suggesting that the spirit of the Constitution frowns upon operating prisons as if they were out of the Count of Monte Cristo, even if it doesn't involve infringing on U.S. citizen's rights. While I agree with Mark1 in principle, I don't think this argument will hold water. From what I understand (and I am certainly not a legal expert) Washington and Minnesota are arguing that the order would do irreparable harm to their citizens and legal residents and that there is no historical precedent of attacks from the seven countries involved, nor is the federal government willing to share whatever intel it is using to justify the ban. The administration on Friday declined to appeal further and stated a new order may be forthcoming. If they use their heads and actually consult the right people first, I think you'll see an order that stands up to legal challenges. I still have some major heartburn with the fact that 1) Those on the right who decried Obama's use of executive orders as unprecedented and an abuse of power now seemingly have no problem with an orange hued draft dodger who thinks executive orders allow him to treat our democracy like a banana republic, and 2) Supposing a second ban sticks, what's the timeline to get this "extreme vetting" program in place? With the federal hiring freeze, my guess is it's going to take a long, long time. Will the ban really be indefinite?
17D_guy Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 14 hours ago, matmacwc said: Right, the US constitution being applied to non Americans? How 'bout nope, thats what makes us special. Yea, I get it. One of the arguments made by WA was that a non-American spouse of an American would be impacted by this ban. I don't know if the non-American had a green card, I'm inclined to think not the way they were discussing it. Additionally, I think (again, not a law-dog) that if the law is discriminatory in nature (no Muslims) it doesn't matter if it applies to non-US citizens only, because it would still violate our other laws. Perhaps along the lines of Mark1's spirit of the law. I get it that politics is politics. But I think if the conservatives I usually stand with had taken the high road, and not done tit-for-tat shit (ex. we hate Obama's EO...Trump's are fine), we'd be in a much better place politically and looking even better going into 2018. As it is now, I've heard of little that's going to benefit those very red-states in the middle, I hope that's coming soon.
tk1313 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, 17D_guy said: Yea, I get it. One of the arguments made by WA was that a non-American spouse of an American would be impacted by this ban. I don't know if the non-American had a green card, I'm inclined to think not the way they were discussing it. Additionally, I think (again, not a law-dog) that if the law is discriminatory in nature (no Muslims) it doesn't matter if it applies to non-US citizens only, because it would still violate our other laws. Perhaps along the lines of Mark1's spirit of the law. I get it that politics is politics. But I think if the conservatives I usually stand with had taken the high road, and not done tit-for-tat shit (ex. we hate Obama's EO...Trump's are fine), we'd be in a much better place politically and looking even better going into 2018. As it is now, I've heard of little that's going to benefit those very red-states in the middle, I hope that's coming soon. They admitted the mistake of banning people with green cards/visas etc that have already been properly vetted. I believe this ban is to actually vet people, something Obama didn't really care about regardless of the fact that ISIS was spewing propaganda 24/7 about needing to get foreign fighters in the US through our unsecured borders. I don't want America to stop being the beacon of hope for the downtrodden any more than you do, but I DO want proper vetting of people coming in, so we don't confuse rabid dog with refugee. The ban is not discriminatory in nature. There are way more predominantly Muslim countries that aren't on the "keep-out" list than there are ones on it. Even so, I think we can all agree that terrorists are predominantly Muslim these days. Don't confuse me for a political expert either, but I think the whole reason the right is pissed off about all the negative coverage of the ban is because Obama did the exact same thing without hardly any negative response. Also it doesn't help that politics has now become "I don't care if what Trump does will 100% no doubt help this country, we're going to fight him every step of the way." And people wonder why he's not completely draining the swamp. He needs people who have played the political game, and know how to screw the left over without them being able to do a damn thing about it. He's a businessman, he knows he needs to keep strong arms around. Edited February 11, 2017 by tk1313 2
Longhorn15 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Prozac said: I still have some major heartburn with the fact that 1) Those on the right who decried Obama's use of executive orders as unprecedented and an abuse of power now seemingly have no problem with an orange hued draft dodger who thinks executive orders allow him to treat our democracy like a banana republic The nature of the Executive Orders in question are completely different. EOs are for the purpose of the POTUS directing the executive branch how to implement policy, and have been around for decades. Restrictions on immigration are exactly within the President's authority. Trump seems to have exceeded his limits by including lawful permanent residents (green card holders,) a mistake I imagine an upcoming EO will rectify. Obama used EOs to get around the fact that he couldn't get the legislation he wanted passed and just ignored law to rule by executive fiat. That's why I'm okay with it so far. EOs implementing a legal policy within the President's job description = perfectly fine. EO ignoring or de facto changing law and doing whatever you want = not fine, or "banana republicish" 2
17D_guy Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said: .... I'm so confused. I was told that Mexico would pay for the wall. Wasn't the F35 savings us buying more to lower per unit cost? I remember the articles around it were very confusing.
tk1313 Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 7 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said: .... I'm so confused. I was told that Mexico would pay for the wall. 2
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, tk1313 said: Nice! Donnie is 70 year oldish multi-millionaire marketing genius I love this guy's flips shit is Olympic quality -mexico will pay for the wall...let me take a closer look at that maybe we pay now then we ll find a way -china, we are not bound by your one China policy....oh wait China we honor it now -Iran deal was terrible thing so bad I am going to rip it up...let me take a look at what it actually says -folks we gonna get rid of ACA (aka Obamacare) immediately...give me like a year tops I promise I got something for you -folks Barry is a foreign Muslim...my bad guys he was born in the USA who'd have thunk it Donnie just figured out how to sell you the same bowl of shit packaged under the guise of i am not a politician Blues: don't worry about it...it ll be okay you had 8 years of POTUS to stank it up Reds: stank it up Edited February 12, 2017 by Guest autow carect is a beach
SurelySerious Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Nice! Donnie is 70 year oldish multi-millionaire marketing genius I love this guy's flips shit is Olympic quality -mexico will pay for the wall...let me take a closer look at that maybe we pay now then we ll find a way -china, we are not bound by your one China policy....oh wait China we honor it now -Iran deal was terrible thing so bad I am going to rip it up...let me take a look at what it actually says -folks we gonna get rid of ACA (aka Obamacare) immediately...give me like a year tops I promise I got something for you -folks Barry is a foreign Muslim...my bad guys he was born in the USA who have thunk it Donnie just figured out how to sell you the same bowl of shit packaged under the guise of i am not a polician Blues: don't worry about it...it ll be okay you had 8 years of POTUS to stank it up Reds: stank it up 1
ClearedHot Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 On 2/10/2017 at 7:11 PM, matmacwc said: Right, the US constitution being applied to non Americans? How 'bout nope, thats what makes us special. That is my biggest problem with the ruling. Past precedent has extended Constitutional protection to aliens while they are on American soil, but the moonbean 9th circuit seems ready to extend those same protections to non U.S. citizens while they are on foreign soil...simply staggering. With rulings like this it is easy to see why 90% of the decisions made by the 9th are eventually overturned. 5
tk1313 Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, 1111 said: Nice! Donnie is 70 year oldish multi-millionaire marketing genius I love this guy's flips shit is Olympic quality -mexico will pay for the wall...let me take a closer look at that maybe we pay now then we ll find a way -china, we are not bound by your one China policy....oh wait China we honor it now -Iran deal was terrible thing so bad I am going to rip it up...let me take a look at what it actually says -folks we gonna get rid of ACA (aka Obamacare) immediately...give me like a year tops I promise I got something for you -folks Barry is a foreign Muslim...my bad guys he was born in the USA who'd have thunk it Donnie just figured out how to sell you the same bowl of shit packaged under the guise of i am not a politician Blues: don't worry about it...it ll be okay you had 8 years of POTUS to stank it up Reds: stank it up All I really want him to say is, "Look, I know I said I was going to build a wall, but I'm going to do something more effective. I'm sure the media is going to run the story for weeks about how I'm a liar for NOT building the wall and that's OK, let them whine. I've realized that the best way to stop the massive amount of illegals flooding into the US is to make sure to prosecute those who overstay their visas. In addition, we're going to halt ALL federal funding to the cities who enable this illegal behavior by acting as 'sanctuary cities'. Citizenship is an earned privilege, not a right. We'll work on immigration reform to ease the process of obtaining Citizenship for those who are willing to conform to the American way of life, and who do NOT take advantage of our charity. OK, media... Go ahead and throw your tantrum." Edited February 12, 2017 by tk1313 5
Ram Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 All I really want him to say is, "Look, I know I said I was going to build a wall, but I'm going to do something more effective. I'm sure the media is going to run the story for weeks about how I'm a liar for NOT building the wall and that's OK, let them whine. I've realized that the best way to stop the massive amount of illegals flooding into the US is to make sure to prosecute those who overstay their visas. In addition, we're going to halt ALL federal funding to the cities who enable this illegal behavior by acting as 'sanctuary cities'. Citizenship is an earned privilege, not a right. We'll work on immigration reform to ease the process of obtaining Citizenship for those who are willing to conform to the American way of life, and who do NOT take advantage of our charity. OK, media... Go ahead and throw your tantrum."This. Yes, 69,000 times.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums 1
Lawman Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 -Iran deal was terrible thing so bad I am going to rip it up...let me take a look at what it actually saysI think people are simplifying this as flip flopping because they have no idea how much we "need" Iran right now.We've got multiple thousands of coalition military in immediate proximity to Shia Militia Groups who take their marching orders from Iran and would love to target US soldiers. We start taking a hard line/pushing back against Iran, or move the Embassy in Israel, we will have green on blues in a whole new way.It makes sense that we would just suck it up for the time being. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 55 minutes ago, Lawman said: I think people are simplifying this as flip flopping because they have no idea how much we "need" Iran right now. We've got multiple thousands of coalition military in immediate proximity to Shia Militia Groups who take their marching orders from Iran and would love to target US soldiers. We start taking a hard line/pushing back against Iran, or move the Embassy in Israel, we will have green on blues in a whole new way. It makes sense that we would just suck it up for the time being. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk People do have an idea how important it is, earlier in the same thread (with mention of cheap rug prices) I talked about the complexity about taking it to Iran, you think we were undermanned for Iraq attempt the same deal on Iran. And I will state again, think proxy war in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and hope Russia does not block us if we decide to do nation building in ME again. We have a leader acting like he is still running, dude you won, stop acting JV, put down the CAPS and twitter, stop trying to deligimitize every single voice of dissent, and get to business. Just rewrite the ban, package the shit so the Blues don't go nuclear whine and move on. You ran on how great you want to make America again, but your latest installment have you trying to deligitimize the judiciary branch. Yeah he should go ahead and continue to erode public trust in that branch as well , he did it to the Presidency before he got it, he did it to our electoral process (fraud everywhere) then won. What do you think happens when you have the lowest performing Congress, a POTUS as polarizing as Barry 2.0 and a judiciary that folks hate? This is is not a recipe for successful governance, but hey maybe when we finish tear it down maybe we can make it great.
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, SurelySerious said: Holy run-on sentences, Batman. Thanks bro! You noticed the best part (smiley face)! Edited February 12, 2017 by Guest How do I insert emojis
17D_guy Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 I don't even know if this is a big deal or not. I do like how they're starting to list the number of sources to show they're not "faking" it up. Still, it's WaPo.. so YMMV https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-flynn-falls-under-growing-pressure-over-russia-contacts-trump-remains-silent/2017/02/12/2b58f31e-f15e-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.f05766e8943f
waveshaper Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 11 hours ago, 17D_guy said: I don't even know if this is a big deal or not. I do like how they're starting to list the number of sources to show they're not "faking" it up. Still, it's WaPo.. so YMMV https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-flynn-falls-under-growing-pressure-over-russia-contacts-trump-remains-silent/2017/02/12/2b58f31e-f15e-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.f05766e8943f It seems like Mikey is exhibiting all the early symptoms of being inflicted with a terminal case of "Susan Rice Syndrome". 1
Guest Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 On 2/13/2017 at 11:26 AM, 17D_guy said: I don't even know if this is a big deal or not. I do like how they're starting to list the number of sources to show they're not "faking" it up. Still, it's WaPo.. so YMMV https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-flynn-falls-under-growing-pressure-over-russia-contacts-trump-remains-silent/2017/02/12/2b58f31e-f15e-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.f05766e8943f Flynn's autopsy results are still ongoing. The prelim story alleges Team Donnie was informed by Sally Yates (AG fired by Donnie for a different issue) that Flynn may have been compromised by the Russians. Unfortunately, it took the "media" to uncover the story and put pressure on Flynn. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-michael-flynn-russia-blackmail-warning-20170213-story.html https://www.google.co.jp/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15S0BR?client=safari
disgruntledemployee Posted February 17, 2017 Author Posted February 17, 2017 Just saw a story that Trump asked VADM Robert Harward to take the job, but turned it down. For those that don't know, Harward was a 1 star that Mattis picked to jump up to 3 stars and be his vice at JFCOM. And when Mattis went to CENTCOM, Harward went too and did the deputy deal again. Reputation alone, looks like he was a sound choice. I think that our opponents on the world stage shit a brick upon hearing the name, and are now drunk with relief that he said no thanks. Out 2
waveshaper Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) On 2/16/2017 at 7:17 PM, disgruntledemployee said: Just saw a story that Trump asked VADM Robert Harward to take the job, but turned it down. For those that don't know, Harward was a 1 star that Mattis picked to jump up to 3 stars and be his vice at JFCOM. And when Mattis went to CENTCOM, Harward went too and did the deputy deal again. Reputation alone, looks like he was a sound choice. I think that our opponents on the world stage shit a brick upon hearing the name, and are now drunk with relief that he said no thanks. Out Adm Harward Quote (rumor?); He called the NSA job offer a "Shit Sandwich". Edited February 21, 2017 by waveshaper
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now