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

fryup · 06-02-2017 1:11pm

well at least he's telling it like it is....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAUKXrUAxHE

i find it refreshing to see an american president be so candid

Christy42 · 06-02-2017 1:11pm

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.

Surely the democrats would have challenged it 2001 if they deemed it unlawful? I mean their own chance to use it was years away.

I sincerely fail to see your issue. I agree the drone strikes were immoral but they don't seem to be illegal in the slightest. Trump's ban is both illegal (unless a higher court over turns the decision) and immoral. Someone believed that the EO had enough legal flaws to bring it to court. This is how the system works.

If someone believed Obama's actions to be unlawful then those exact same courts were there before. That they were not used is not Obama's fault.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:13pm

alastair wrote: »

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.

The Trump administration believes they have the laws to back up their travel ban.
It will be interesting to see.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:16pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Surely the democrats would have challenged it 2001 if they deemed it unlawful? I mean their own chance to use it was years away.

I sincerely fail to see your issue. I agree the drone strikes were immoral but they don't seem to be illegal in the slightest. Trump's ban is both illegal (unless a higher court over turns the decision) and immoral. Someone believed that the EO had enough legal flaws to bring it to court. This is how the system works.

If someone believed Obama's actions to be unlawful then those exact same courts were there before. That they were not used is not Obama's fault.

It was Obama who gave the go ahead to become the first US president to hand out summary justice to a US citizen, without a trial and with no transparency .
In effect the US president can choose at a whim to have a citizen of their country killed and remain unaccountable.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:18pm

RobertKK wrote: »

The Trump administration believes they have the laws to back up their travel ban.
It will be interesting to see.

Sure. But don't pretend that the legal challenge to the unproven opinion of an administration is on the same page as the application of established law, passed in congress fifteen years ago.

robinph · 06-02-2017 1:19pm

Anything I don't like is fake:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648

Zubeneschamali · 06-02-2017 1:20pm

RobertKK wrote: »

It was Obama who gave the go ahead to become the first US president to hand out summary justice to a US citizen, without a trial and with no transparency .

Good thing he isn't President anymore.

So how about the new guy?

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:21pm

RobertKK wrote: »

It was Obama who gave the go ahead to become the first US president to hand out summary justice to a US citizen, without a trial and with no transparency .
In effect the US president can choose at a whim to have a citizen of their country killed and remain unaccountable.

No they can't. They can exercise the legal right to attack specific targets in specific contexts. No trial of any of these targets has ever been required.

Here's the actual overview of what's allowed, what's not, and where it's been applied. It might help focus on some facts.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/framework.Report_Final.pdf

oscarBravo · 06-02-2017 1:21pm

RobertKK wrote: »

The Trump administration believes they have the laws to back up their travel ban.
It will be interesting to see.

None of which is relevant to the fact that Trump described a member of the judiciary as a "so-called judge", thereby attacking the independence of the judicial branch of government and the separation of powers. Do you have anything to say about that, other than "but Obama"?

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:23pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Good thing he isn't President anymore.

So how about the new guy?

Hopefully someone who will be held accountable unlike the last president who was not held accountable to the same extent, and who got away with a lot of dodgy stuff.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:25pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

None of which is relevant to the fact that Trump described a member of the judiciary as a "so-called judge", thereby attacking the independence of the judicial branch of government and the separation of powers. Do you have anything to say about that, other than "but Obama"?

Someone can take him to court if they have an issue with free speech, or if he broke the law.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:25pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Hopefully someone who will be held accountable unlike the last president who was not held accountable to the same extent, and who got away with a lot of dodgy stuff.

That you've failed to point to, so far.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:26pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Someone can take him to court if they have an issue with free speech, or if he broke the law.

A 'so-called court' perhaps?

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:26pm

alastair wrote: »

That you've failed to point to, so far.

The left turned a blind eye to policies Obama implemented which would have been highly protested against if the same president had been Republican.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:28pm

alastair wrote: »

A 'so-called court' perhaps?

Let someone take him to court over it. What law was broken?

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:29pm

RobertKK wrote: »

The left turned a blind eye to policies Obama implemented which would have been highly protested against if the same president had been Republican.

'The left' are not in the business of governing the country and upholding the constitution. That would be elected representatives, and we now have a president that seems to not understand those obligations. You seem determined to evade the issue at hand.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:29pm

alastair wrote: »

That you've failed to point to, so far.

In the views of the left leaning people who were silent on the previous president.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:31pm

alastair wrote: »

'The left' are not in the business of governing the country and upholding the constitution. That would be elected representatives, and we now have a president that seems to not understand those obligations. You seem determined to evade the issue at hand.

They are in the business of being blind towards Democrats policy, and gaining sight with Republicans policy.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:31pm

RobertKK wrote: »

In the views of the left leaning people who were silent on the previous president.

They were not silent. That's patently untrue.

And still attempting to evade the issue to hand.

None the wiser on what dodgy legal activity you believe Obama was engaged in.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:36pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Let someone take him to court over it. What law was broken?

I think the appropriate court for not-knowing-what-your-constitutional-role is, is the court of public opinion. He's not faring so well in that regard.

InTheTrees · 06-02-2017 1:36pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Hopefully someone who will be held accountable unlike the last president who was not held accountable to the same extent, and who got away with a lot of dodgy stuff.

come come, really? Have we forgotten six years of republican controlled congress? The years of benghazi hearings and the endless republican efforts to pin anything they could on obama.

And you're using that to justify trumps making unconstitutional executive orders.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:37pm

alastair wrote: »

They were not silent. That's patently untrue.

And still attempting to evade the issue to hand.

It is very true,

https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers/status/825411853392179200

Where were the protests when Obama stopped Iraqi refugees entering the US for 6 months in 2011?

Where were the protesters with "Refugees welcome"?
A bunch of hypocrites.

InTheTrees · 06-02-2017 1:38pm

It would be more relevant to discuss the constitution. Here's the appropriate passage in the Constitution. Basically its the very first sentence of the very first Article of the Bill Of Rights. Article One of the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:43pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

come come, really? Have we forgotten six years of republican controlled congress? The years of benghazi hearings and the endless republican efforts to pin anything they could on obama.

And you're using that to justify trumps making unconstitutional executive orders.

What should the US expect in Libya when they went to defend terrorists that Gaddafi said he would crush in Benghazi.
It was most awful what happened to the ambassador and his people in Benghazi, but at the same time, Gaddafi had warned about a terrorism problem in that city, which the US and the west helped.
It was ironic.

I am all for accountability, but it is clear some presidents are made more accountable than others, which points to problems in what is suppose to be a democracy.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:45pm

RobertKK wrote: »

It is very true,

https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers/status/825411853392179200

Where were the protests when Obama stopped Iraqi refugees entering the US for 6 months in 2011?

Where were the protesters with "Refugees welcome"?
A bunch of hypocrites.

Maybe because there wasn't a ban?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-alternative-fact-20170202-story.html

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:47pm

RobertKK wrote: »

It was most awful what happened to the ambassador and his people in Benghazi, but at the same time, Gaddafi had warned about a terrorism problem in that city, which the US and the west helped.

Impressive. Given that he was dead.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:49pm

alastair wrote: »

Maybe because there wasn't a ban?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-alternative-fact-20170202-story.html

Great spin in that article.
It calls it a backlog.
Meanwhile the Trump administration say they need time to implement new vetting policies, and that is not a backlog...somehow.

alastair · 06-02-2017 1:51pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Great spin in that article.
It calls it a backlog.
Meanwhile the Trump administration say they need time to implement new vetting policies, and that is not a backlog...somehow.

If you can't see the distinctions, there's not much can be done for you.

Zubeneschamali · 06-02-2017 1:52pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Great spin in that article.
It calls it a backlog.
Meanwhile the Trump administration say they need time to implement new vetting policies, and that is not a backlog...somehow.

Trump calls it a ban.

RobertKK · 06-02-2017 1:52pm

alastair wrote: »

Impressive. Given that he was dead.

The reason for the war in Libya is Gaddafi said he would crush the terrorist uprising in Benghazi.
The US and the west dismissed the terrorism argument and said he was going to massacre civilians.
In the end after Gaddafi was brutally murdered with a long knife inserted up his rectum, terrorists in Benghazi killed the ambassador and others in Benghazi.
When one goes to war for the wrong reasons, bad things happen.

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

Comments