Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
1…8990929495…332

Comments

  • Options
    #2732
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, it seems the protesters have now disowned her and pronounced it "fake news". They were quite happy to put it out there as real news originally though, when they thought it could be used to justify their violent demonstrations.

    Ehh, seems to me that it's yet another instance of gullible wingnuts getting duped by YouTube videos. Nobody has 'disowned' the protestor, but it's certainly provoked an awful lot of idiotic seething from the other camp.


  • Options
    #2733
    rgossip30
    Registered Users Posts: 2,464 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    What is it with Trump fanboys and their veneration of tyrants? :rolleyes:

    A lot of trump haters here obviously,it was fake news anyhow,an ice bucket would still have sorted her .


  • Options
    #2734
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Akrasia wrote: »
    In Ireland you could be charged with contempt of Court and jailed for the kinds of public statements Trump has been making. Is there a an equivalent in the US?

    Really? I doubt it. Not unless you were in court. Journalists criticise supreme Court decisions all the time. As well as politicians.

    There's a huge amount of nonsense about not criticising the judiciary. The seperation of powers doesn't mean they politicians can't criticise judges just that the powers are separated.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html

    There's a link to Obama criticising the supreme Court at the state of the union.


  • Options
    #2735
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Really? I doubt it. Not unless you were in court. Journalists criticise supreme Court decisions all the time. As well as politicians.

    There's a huge amount of nonsense about not criticising the judiciary. The seperation of powers doesn't mean they politicians can't criticise judges just that the powers are separated.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html

    There's a link to Obama criticising the supreme Court at the state of the union.

    I don't think many people have an issue with Trump criticizing a judgement. The point is he attempting to undermine a sitting a judge and question his legitimacy.


  • Options
    #2736
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I don't think many people have an issue with Trump criticizing a judgement. The point is he attempting to undermine a sitting a judge and question his legitimacy.

    The distinction seems to go over some people's heads. Trump has no regard for the constitution, and disdain for the rule of law. This is also why he'll be stymied by the GOP sooner rather than later.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2737
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Trump when asked about Putin by Bill O'Reilly, Trump says there are a lot of killers, and asks Bill, 'are we so innocent' and then refers to the Iraq war.

    It's utterly amazing that the "left" has any criticism of that statement.


  • Options
    #2738
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    alastair wrote:
    The distinction seems to go over some people's heads. Trump has no regard for the constitution, and disdain for the rule of law. This is also why he'll be stymied by the GOP sooner rather than later.

    Not until they've got what they want from their useful idiot. Spineless Pence supported Trump's attack on the judge.


  • Options
    #2739
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    The fact is the US is not the 3rd most dangerous place for journalists. Russia on the other hand is... This is in a large part because of Putin.

    The question was about Aleppo


  • Options
    #2740
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    The question was about Aleppo

    No it wasn't.

    O'Reilly specifically pointed out that Putin himself was a killer (as opposed to Russian or US military policy making):
    I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.

    http://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/5/14516156/donald-trump-interview-transcript-bill-oreilly-super-bowl-2017


  • Options
    #2741
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    alastair wrote: »
    The distinction seems to go over some people's heads. Trump has no regard for the constitution, and disdain for the rule of law. This is also why he'll be stymied by the GOP sooner rather than later.

    What constitutional laws are being broken here? Judges can be elected in the US - do you think that they are free from criticism during the election?

    The hysteria about Trump matches the far right belief that Obama was a dictator, or a tyrant and therefore any measure be engaged in was evidence of tyranny. That was isolated to a small group though, the trump hysteria envelops the west.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2742
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    alastair wrote: »
    No it wasn't.

    O'Reilly specifically pointed out that Putin himself was a killer (as opposed to Russian or US military policy making):

    Is the implication that Putin killed people with his bare hands?


  • Options
    #2743
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, it seems the protesters have now disowned her and pronounced it "fake news". They were quite happy to put it out there as real news originally though, when they thought it could be used to justify their violent demonstrations.

    Show me one example where someone thought what she did was ok just because she was supposedly a 'professor'.

    You posted that link to back up your point about 'subversive professors' and even if it was real, it'd still be a **** example.

    You're talking out of your arse.


  • Options
    #2744
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    What constitutional laws are being broken here? Judges can be elected in the US - do you think that they are free from criticism during the election?

    The hysteria about Trump matches the far right belief that Obama was a dictator, or a tyrant and therefore any measure be engaged in was evidence of tyranny. That was isolated to a small group though, the trump hysteria envelops the west.

    The judge in question is from Washington which doesn't have retention elections, therefore his judgment should not be undermined.

    It most certainly was not. There were top ranking politicians from the GOP continually calling for Obama's head. Just watch any of the GOP primary debates and you'll see the dumb things they called Obama. Some wanted to impeach him for saluting while holding a latte ffs.


  • Options
    #2745
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    What constitutional laws are being broken here? Judges can be elected in the US - do you think that they are free from criticism during the election?

    The election is over, so that's something of a red herring.
    Undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary is not a criticism of the opinion of the judge, but of the judiciary itself. That's rather at odds with the constitution that he serves under.


  • Options
    #2746
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Is the implication that Putin killed people with his bare hands?

    The implication is that Putin is personally responsible for the deaths of people as opposed to Russian foreign policy. But then you knew that already. Quite where you got the 'it's about Aleppo' thing is a mystery.


  • Options
    #2747
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    alastair wrote: »
    The distinction seems to go over some people's heads. Trump has no regard for the constitution, and disdain for the rule of law. This is also why he'll be stymied by the GOP sooner rather than later.

    Where in US law did Obama have the rights to go above the courts to hand out summary justice to an American citizen via a drone strike?
    He was the first president to do this.


  • Options
    #2748
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    RobertKK wrote:
    Where in US law did Obama have the rights to go above the courts to hand summary justice to an American citizen via a drone strike? He was the first president to do this.


    But...


  • Options
    #2749
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    But...

    But is not an answer, it is a deflection that says 'It was ok for the rules of law and the courts to be ignored' which was worse than criticising the judiciary.


  • Options
    #2750
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Where in US law did Obama have the rights to go above the courts to hand out summary justice to an American citizen via a drone strike?
    He was the first president to do this.

    Authorization for Use of Military Force, PL 107-40. In effect since 2001.


  • Options
    #2751
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    RobertKK wrote: »
    But is not an answer, it is a deflection that says 'It was ok for the rules of law and the courts to be ignored' which was worse than criticising the judiciary.

    But Obama so Trump can do what he likes?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2752
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RobertKK wrote: »
    But is not an answer, it is a deflection that says 'It was ok for the rules of law and the courts to be ignored' which was worse than criticising the judiciary.

    The rule of law wasn't ignored. The strike was legal and didn't require a court order.


  • Options
    #2753
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Obama had absolutely no transparency in the judicial system when summary justice was meeted out, far worse than any travel ban.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

    No state attorney generals going to court to stop him. So much politics being played by the opponents of Trump.


  • Options
    #2754
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    alastair wrote: »
    The rule of law wasn't ignored. The strike was legal and didn't require a court order.

    Where were the court challenges to see if it was legal?


  • Options
    #2755
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RobertKK wrote: »
    No state attorney generals going to court to stop him. So much politics being played by the opponents of Trump.

    No-one went to court to stop him, because he was't doing anything illegal. You don't have to like the policy, but you have to accept that it's lawful. Not so with Trump's executive order on immigration.


  • Options
    #2756
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Where were the court challenges to see if it was legal?

    Court challenges are not an obligatory step in passing laws. The law has been in effect since 2001. You need to come to terms with that fact.


  • Options
    #2757
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    alastair wrote: »
    Court challenges are not an obligatory step in passing laws. The law has been in effect since 2001. You need to come to terms with that fact.

    They are not, however we can see how when law a president believes is lawful, can be deemed unlawful.


  • Options
    #2758
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    alastair wrote: »
    No-one went to court to stop him, because he was't doing anything illegal. You don't have to like the policy, but you have to accept that it's lawful. Not so with Trump's executive order on immigration.

    Because the Republicans didn't have a problem with it, and Obama/Democrat supporters have been shown to be hypocrites when it comes to policy.


  • Options
    #2759
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RobertKK wrote: »
    They are not, however we can see how when law a president believes is lawful, can be deemed unlawful.

    Any challenges to other aspects of the AUMF have been upheld in the courts. It's open to any US citizen to challenge the drone strikes too, but that's not happened yet. None of which removes from the fact of the law in place, and therefore the legality of the strike. The law is not "believed to be lawful" by the president btw - it's been voted into law by Congress.


  • Options
    #2760
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So much politics being played by the opponents of Trump.

    The Judiciary is one of the three branches of government in the US system. Its the american way of having checks and balances.

    The legal system keeps an eye on the legality of the law being produced by the Executive branch.

    Is that really so bad?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2761
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Because the Republicans didn't have a problem with it, and Obama/Democrat supporters have been shown to be hypocrites when it comes to policy.

    Where exactly do you see the hypocrisy? Democrats voted for the AUMF too. Applying the law that they voted for is not hypocrisy.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement