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

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

Night classes, including various aspects of law. As I said, I don't attach any great importance to the paper qualification.

Fair enough. However, a Diploma in Legal Studies isn't the same thing as a "Diploma in Constitutional Law".

I still argue that there are key differences between the form of separation of powers in the US and Ireland which would not form a major part of a part-time one year crash course in the fundamentals of various aspects of the Irish legal system.

Nody

recedite wrote: »

We keep hearing this mantra, but how exactly is IS being helped by Trump? In the parts of the world where IS is rampant, the world is already divided; into sunni muslims, shia muslims, and "any other infidels".
IS has survived under the two periods of Obama administration. His stated aim was to "degrade" them. In other words to contain them, but to maintain them as a useful threat to Syria and Assad.

Because ISIS/AQ wants to sell the world view that USA and the West is out to crush Islam in a religious war of survival. The Muslim ban implemented by Trump helps sell that story to disenfranchised people not only in their part of the world but also to Muslims in the Western world which helps radicalise them for lone wolf attacks which are close to impossible to stop.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

We keep hearing this mantra, but how exactly is IS being helped by Trump? In the parts of the world where IS is rampant, the world is already divided; into sunni muslims, shia muslims, and "any other infidels".
IS has survived under the two periods of Obama administration. His stated aim was to "degrade" them. In other words to contain them, but to maintain them as a useful threat to Syria and Assad.
Trump on the other hand, has vowed to destroy IS, and soon.
Night classes, including various aspects of law. As I said, I don't attach any great importance to the paper qualification.

Trump says a lot of things. I am not sure many bare any relation to the real world at this point.

Simply put the biggest danger in recent years has been people already in the west becoming radicalised. It isn't like 9-11 style planned mission any more but small cells planning things and ISIS claiming responsibility after the fact.

There is much more of a focus from Trump's rhetoric on Muslims as opposed to specifically extremists or that all Iranians etc. Will be considered terrorists until proven otherwise with the ban. Remember they will have heard him promise a Muslim ban and a close aide call this ban a Muslim ban.

Further hatred of Muslims will lead them to be more isolated and bring further extremism.

Here they are using it. https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration-iraq-iran-restrictions-travel-islamic-state-us-visa-a7552856.html%3Famp?client=ms-android-h3g-ie

Mr.Micro

All this rhetoric from Trump and Pence is to put fear into people and help Trump and his bloc push through measures to gain more power and control. More weapons, defence and whatever. If anyone goes against them, then then are accused of putting the US in danger....no debate, analysis just dictates. Scary.

jobbridge4life

Mr.Micro wrote: »

All this rhetoric from is to put fear into people and help him and his bloc push through measures to gain more power and control. More weapons, defence and whatever. If anyone goes against him then then are accused of putting the US in danger....no debate, analysis just dictates. Scary.

Diminishing the other branches of government.
Accusing dissenters of betrayal, and endangering the security of the state.
Spreading lies and disinformation constantly.
Encouraging the populace to distrust and disbelieve the organs of public discourse, and suggesting that these organisations have ulterior motives.
Constant, fact-lite spreading of fear and terror.

If it looks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and goose-steps like a duck...

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

Further hatred of Muslims will lead them to be more isolated and bring further extremism.

One of the ways security forces in the West have foiled Islamist plots is by having people within the Muslim community warn them about dangerous individuals.

Tarring all Muslims as terrorists is obviously going to discourage non-terrorist Muslims from contacting the security forces. If you think the police will think you're a terrorist suspect, why would you volunteer to help them? Best just to keep your head down.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Fair enough. However, a Diploma in Legal Studies isn't the same thing as a "Diploma in Constitutional Law".

True, but at the time I was responding to a post "if you had studied con law you would.." and anyway if you don't pass the con law exam, you don't get the diploma.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I still argue that there are key differences between the form of separation of powers in the US and Ireland which would not form a major part of a part-time one year crash course in the fundamentals of various aspects of the Irish legal system.

Well its more in the usage of words, but the basic principle is an Enlightenment one and goes back to the same pre French revolution roots.

When you thought you were correcting me earlier, it was over the word "government" which I put in inverted commas originally (meaning usage as an Irish person uses the word, although I failed to clarify that)

What we call "the state" here might be called "the crown" in the UK or "the govt" in the USA. It encompasses all three powers.

The executive power in the US is clearly the president and his administration. In the UK it is the monarch and her ministers. In Ireland it is "the government".

It was probably a mistake to use the word "government" in our constitution when pinning it down to such a narrow definition of just the nominated ministers.
International usage of the word in the UK and the USA has a much wider scope and also includes state departments etc.. which leads to some confusion here.

Anyway, when you're explaining, you're losing, so I'll stop now.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I have no agenda other than I'm against the mass immigration of people from Countries with cultures that fail to integrate. I think Islam is a dangerous ideology which suppresses basic human rights. That isn't really up for debate is it?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

I'd agree with that. It's a pretty toxic religion and a disturbing amount of its followers have a pretty messed up view of the world. Whatever the reasons for it, religious or cultural, people from these regions who wind up in Europe tend to cause more than their fair share of social problems so being against the current large-scale mass migration is fairly reasonable.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What am I misleading? You're right in the sense there's no hardcore data available but all you can do is use the stuff that's been reported on. Here's a link which refers to sexual assaults and not specifically the term rape.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-and-denmark-have-highest-number-of-sexual-assaults-in-europe-a6800901.html

What's misleading is that you're using a misleading graph to demonstrate that the influx of muslims into Sweden is causing the spike in reported rapes. While it's undeniable that muslims are disproportionately represented in rape stats, that graph gives the impression that Sweden is the rape capital of the world.

You know that this is untrue.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Then there's stuff like this, where coverups are happening. The though of something like that happening here is mindblowing, but there's so many similar stories at what do you begin to question it?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police-accused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival

True. The swedish state seems to have taken political correctness to absurd degrees. Newspapers whitening the pixellated pictures of crime suspects is almost funny, for example. There's a big desire there to hide the fact that immigrants from MENA countries have higher crime participation rates and higher welfare dependency than the general population. I'm not disputing that.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I have no idea what point you're trying to prove with Julian Assange. He would have been extradited to the US if the Swedish authorities got hold of him so his case isn't a good example to use for obvious reasons.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/807291023068164096?lang=en

I brought him up because of the misleading graph. Anyone who read about the Assange story with regard to the rape allegations would have learned that Sweden has a very broad definition of Rape and that it also over-reports. Sweden seems to be on the nuttier end of Political Correctness so that might explain it.

Whatever the reasons, there's no way that you didn't know about this over-reporting and the broad definition. It's even explained in the article that you linked.

If you want to make a point that bringing in a load of people from the Middle East and North Africa will cause an increase in crime and, in particular, rapes, there's plenty of data out there to show this. Showing information that you know to be misleading just makes it look like you're trying to fool people.

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Micro wrote:

All this rhetoric from Trump and Pence is to put fear into people and help Trump and his bloc push through measures to gain more power and control. More weapons, defence and whatever. If anyone goes against them, then then are accused of putting the US in danger....no debate, analysis just dictates. Scary.

Exactly. An attack by Isis in the US would prompt a flood of authoritarian orders and legislation. I'm not saying Trump would welcome such an attack obviously but it would be an opportunity.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

Obama didn't pretend to have the capacity to destroy IS

I think he did have the capacity, but he would have had to get permission from Syria (ie Assad) before invading their sovereign territory. Russia made sure of that.
By refusing to engage with Assad and Putin, he allowed IS to fester.
Trump has no such hang-ups. I expect he'll get the job done within the year.

Nody wrote: »

Because ISIS/AQ wants to sell the world view that USA and the West is out to crush Islam in a religious war of survival.

Not really. The goal of IS is to set up an Islamic Caliphate, run strictly according to a sunni Salafist interpretation of sharia law straight from the Koran, and then defend it from outside interference. Which they have been quite successful at doing.

demfad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It is not. Trump is not calling the judge fat or saying that he's dumb, he's calling him a "so-called" judge aka he's illegitimate. That is a blatant breach of his role as the head of the Executive. If you knew anything about constitutional law you'd know that this type of stuff is completely unacceptable.

Stop thinking a "constitutional crisis" or "breach of the separation of powers" is literally Trump firing judges or blowing up Congress. In reality breaches of separations of powers cases happen all the time; if you'd studied con law, you'd know.

This type of behaviour is however not normal whatsoever. I find it absolutely disgusting btw that somebody like Ted Cruz who was one of the top constitutional law scholars at Harvard hasn't condemned Trump's behaviour in this regard. For a man who prides himself on upholding the constitution at all costs, his political career has sold him out.

Cruz was originally the candidate of the billionaire Mercers (Robert and middle daughter Rebekah). When Cruz was eliminated they moved to Trump. When Cruz failed to endorse Trump at the GOP convention and told people to vote with their concience the Mercers spoke out.

“Last summer and again this year, Senator Ted Cruz pledged to support the candidacy of the nominee of the Republican Party, whomever that nominee might be,” the Mercers, who rarely comment in the news media, said in the statement to The New York Times. “We are profoundly disappointed that on Wednesday night he chose to disregard this pledge.”
The statement continued: “The Democratic Party will soon choose as their nominee a candidate who would repeal both the First and Second Amendments of the Bill of Rights, a nominee who would remake the Supreme Court in her own image. We need ‘all hands on deck’ to ensure that Mr. Trump prevails.”
“Unfortunately,” the statement added, “Senator Cruz has chosen to remain in his bunk below, a decision both regrettable and revealing.”

Cruz quickly reversed his position and has been a good little boy since.

For anyone who doesnt know: Mercers own 50% Breitbart news, and have invested heavily in Cambridge analytica. Bannon is on the board of cambridge. They have worked with Bannon, Conway, Bossie over many years. Bannon co-set up the Government Accountability Institute which was headed by Rebekah Mercer. THis group targetted individuals for political assasination. They produced the (largely) propaganda book and film entitled 'Clinton cash' to attack Hillery Clinton. All are members of the Council for National Policy, super rich religious Statists set up by Richard De Vos (Betsy deVos husband). Eric Prince (Blackwater) brother of Betsy DeVos well in with Mercers also. He was implicated in the Giulliani/Trump conspiracy to force Comey to release a letter admitting Clinton email investigation re-opened. He is under investigation for his role in this.

If Cruz steps out of line, the Mercers will ensure he wont be re-elected. He is gutless as are the majority of the GOP.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bigotry? Over half of Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal and a quarter of them want Sharia law according to the guardian. Women need to cover themselves and are treated poorly. I don't agree with that, do you?

The Catholic church thinks (or did until very recently) homosexuality should be illegal; old women still wear head covers in Ireland; very common in places like Greeece still; rape doesnt exist within a marriage; the man is undisputed head of family; they play down domestic violence: when a man murders his entire family he gets buried as a hero; they carried out, excused and his 10s of thousands of dispicable cases of assault on children.

Evangelicals in the US arent much different.

THe requirement is that people obey the law of the land.

frolic

"Again, this is a good thing in theory as long as America and Russia persuade Iran's government to abandon fascist laws on women and alcohol (laws that are contrary to Russian, American and Iranian business interests) and insist on the military and clergy to stay out of politics."

Doubt women and alcohol are on the Russian or American agenda for Iran.

I do wonder, OP, how you feel now as your post was created three months ago.

I fear for rural America; Trump said he wants every town to fund their own schooling, not the state. There's more he is doing than just that, but that's what I've been thinking of recently. I enjoyed rural America, but it is a dying place. Perhaps that's the goal? Get these town abandoned and buy them out or get the town unable to afford schooling and get loans possibly involved.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

I think he did have the capacity

That's great, but at odds with all experience of dealing with jihadist groupings to date. The Taliban managed to survive years of intensive warfare against NATO troops and the Afghan government, and al-Quada is still in effect, despite 16 years of war with the US, and the deaths of their core leadership. Assad or Putin have no influence on IS or the US in Iraq, and yet there's still IS strongholds within Iraq these years later.

recedite wrote: »

I expect he'll get the job done within the year.

Fair play if he does. But he won't.

Jan_de_Bakker

Is this true that US national parks could be sold off to private companies and so open to plundering for resources ??

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Because ISIS/AQ wants to sell the world view that USA and the West is out to crush Islam in a religious war of survival. The Muslim ban implemented by Trump helps sell that story to disenfranchised people not only in their part of the world but also to Muslims in the Western world which helps radicalise them for lone wolf attacks which are close to impossible to stop.

And I believe that this is well understood by Bannon/Miller who were behind that EO.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

Assad or Putin have no influence on IS or the US in Iraq, and yet there's still IS strongholds within Iraq these years later.

The might of the US army could easily rout IS in Iraq, but what would be the point? IS militia would retreat across into the Syrian part of their territory, and then launch suicide attacks from there against US troops.
The current Iraqi army represents a rump shia state, so they have no great enthusiasm for fighting in the sunni areas of northern Iraq that IS controls.

The US previously tried to get the UK to join in an attack on Syrian territory, but the UK parliament voted against it. Obama realised that going in alone, without any UN sanction, would be the actions of a pariah state.
And more importantly in the current situation, it would involve coming into conflict with Russian armed forces allied to Syria.

So he decided to half heartedly "degrade" IS, and only within Iraq, by regular bombing from the air instead.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

So he decided to half heartedly "degrade" IS, and only within Iraq, by regular bombing from the air instead.

Sorry to break it to you, but the US, along with France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey and Denmark have all been attacking ISIS in Syria.

Maybe you should check up on these things, before making patently false claims?

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

True, but at the time I was responding to a post "if you had studied con law you would.." and anyway if you don't pass the con law exam, you don't get the diploma.

Well its more in the usage of words, but the basic principle is an Enlightenment one and goes back to the same pre French revolution roots.

When you thought you were correcting me earlier, it was over the word "government" which I put in inverted commas originally (meaning usage as an Irish person uses the word, although I failed to clarify that)

What we call "the state" here might be called "the crown" in the UK or "the govt" in the USA. It encompasses all three powers.

The executive power in the US is clearly the president and his administration. In the UK it is the monarch and her ministers. In Ireland it is "the government".

It was probably a mistake to use the word "government" in our constitution when pinning it down to such a narrow definition of just the nominated ministers.
International usage of the word in the UK and the USA has a much wider scope and also includes state departments etc.. which leads to some confusion here.

Anyway, when you're explaining, you're losing, so I'll stop now.

Ok, all fair enough (with the exception of the President's administration not forming a part of the Executive as per Alvarez)... but I don't understand how that establishes that undermining of members of the judiciary by the executive is not a breach of the fundamental concept of separation of powers.

Given no branch has Constitutional power over the other - they are equal under the law - no branch has the authority to (attempt to) undermine the other. Although the Executive may have a compelling interest (i.e. National Security) to disagree with the Judiciary, they can only engage in actions which are actually necessary to achieve these goals; undoubtedly, undermining the credibility of a federal judge is not actually necessary in these circumstances.

FreudianSlippers

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Is this true that US national parks could be sold off to private companies and so open to plundering for resources ??

Yes, although I'm sure there would be some legal restrictions put in place to prevent what you describe.

However, if Trump is to be believed, he wouldn't allow this to happen. I believe he came out strongly against the idea late last year either just before or just after the election.

As it stands, for whatever reason, HR 621 (the sell-off) has been withdrawn; however HJ 46 (the drilling) is still on the table.

alastair

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, although I'm sure there would be some legal restrictions put in place to prevent what you describe.

However, if Trump is to be believed, he wouldn't allow this to happen. I believe he came out strongly against the idea late last year either just before or just after the election.

As it stands, for whatever reason, HR 621 (the sell-off) has been withdrawn; however HJ 46 (the drilling) is still on the table.

Obama made a point of a show of support for the national parks last summer on their anniversary, presumably ahead of GOP pressure to offload state lands. I was in Yosemite when they were test landing Marine 1 and secret service details. All very dramatic.

As you say, Trump is at odds with the GOP on divesting the national parks. You can't be all bad.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

..undermining the credibility of a federal judge is not actually necessary in these circumstances.

Crude name-calling is crass and unnecessary, but then Trump is a crass individual.
Whether it "undermines" or "interferes" with the judge is another matter. The judge put a stay on Trump's EO did he not, which still stands? And the guy is still a judge?
Trumps undermining/interference, if that's what it is alleged to be, has had no real effect then.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you, but the US, along with France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey and Denmark have all been attacking ISIS in Syria.

They moved on to bombing IS in Syria after the Russians showed aerial photos of trucks carrying oil in convoys going between IS in Syria and neighbouring Turkey.
No sign of any of these countries "going in" with ground forces though. Not unless somebody agrees it with Assad and Putin.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Crude name-calling is crass and unnecessary, but then Trump is a crass individual.
Whether it "undermines" or "interferes" with the judge is another matter. The judge put a stay on Trump's EO did he not, which still stands? And the guy is still a judge?
Trumps undermining/interference, if that's what it is alleged to be, has had no real effect then.

I don't care if he fails he shouldn't try. However the main point is undermining a judges authority by calling the judge a so called judge. The judge is a judge. He can disagree with the ruling all he likes but this is attempting to undermine the judges authority in the eyes of the people (as opposed to physically removing him from office which Trump obviously can't do). Trump should show respect to the judges office even as he is allowed to give out about the judge.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

No sign of any of these countries "going in" with ground forces though. Not unless somebody agrees it with Assad and Putin.

"Going in" with ground forces sure stabilised Iraq, didn't it?

And all sorts of people said, before Dubya and Blair did it, that they should not do it. For exactly the reasons which then came to pass:

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha..

robinph

Out of the list of 78 incidents the BBC didn't cover 2 of them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090

Other news sites have their own versions of the list of lies which link to coverage of all the incidents. That those stories were not covered is a Trump BOGOF deal, except it's yuger as you get 78 lies for the price of one this time.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

They moved on to bombing IS in Syria after the Russians showed aerial photos of trucks carrying oil in convoys going between IS in Syria and neighbouring Turkey.

They've been attacking IS in Syria since 2014 - more than a year before your Russian aerial photos. So that really makes no sense whatsoever.

recedite wrote: »

No sign of any of these countries "going in" with ground forces though. Not unless somebody agrees it with Assad and Putin.

Not large numbers, but significant special forces are on the ground in Syria. rather at odds with your theory that the US isn't taking on IS in Syria, and that

The might of the US army could easily rout IS in Iraq, but what would be the point? IS militia would retreat across into the Syrian part of their territory

KingBrian2

The problem is not so much IS well yes IS is the short term threat but the real threat are groups like the MB, Hamas, Islamic Jihad who's religious dogma is too much too stomach even for those countries and we in the west provided a platform for the rise of those sectarian groups. Look at today's news about prison cells in Damascus mistreating inmates as if Amnesty International could not focus on the horrible conditions of prisoners in Mexican & Brazilian cells. This all smacks of wanting to impose western methods on to foreign cultures without regard to what the host communities want. The majority of Syrians want to see those criminals locked up in jail but by portraying them as victims it is incredibly destabilizing. Meanwhile across in little old Israel the settlements continue to be built up.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The problem is not so much IS well yes IS is the short term threat but the real threat are groups like the MB, Hamas, Islamic Jihad who's religious dogma is too much too stomach even for those countries and we in the west provided a platform for the rise of those sectarian groups. Look at today's news about prison cells in Damascus mistreating inmates as if Amnesty International could not focus on the horrible conditions of prisoners in Mexican & Brazilian cells. This all smacks of wanting to impose western methods on to foreign cultures without regard to what the host communities want. The majority of Syrians want to see those criminals locked up in jail but by portraying them as victims it is incredibly destabilizing. Meanwhile across in little old Israel the settlements continue to be built up.

I am sorry? Are you giving out about Amnesty pointing out human rights abuses? What the F! A: they do point out issues in the rest of the world and B: are you just annoyed they pointed out the abuses by a side you would rather be the good guys?

This is beyond ridiculous at this stage. Amnesty point out human rights abuses where they find them where as you argue they should ignore some of them for reasons?

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

Crude name-calling is crass and unnecessary, but then Trump is a crass individual.
Whether it "undermines" or "interferes" with the judge is another matter. The judge put a stay on Trump's EO did he not, which still stands? And the guy is still a judge?
Trumps undermining/interference, if that's what it is alleged to be, has had no real effect then.

I said it before and I'll say it again, it's not just name-calling, it's questioning his legitimacy. Calling a judge a 'so-called judge' implies that he is illegitimate and has no right to hand out judgments.

If for example, the judge said that the president is 'a so-called president', how do you think constitutional scholars, let alone the President and his team, would react?

There'd be impeachment proceedings within hours.