America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

Until a court strikes it down, it IS the law.

True. However several states have enacted stays in order to nullify the executive order until it can be properly challenged. Unlike Trump, the courts cannot and will not simply enact their will on a whim. They will have a proper trial with all relevant parties and considered and well presented legal opinions. Their judgement will be transparent, well-reasoned and arrived at after great deliberation.

You know, not like firing someone in three hours because they happened to hold a different opinion.

Yeah, well it's not.

I'm no lawyer, but the fact that many educated and experienced practitioners of law are coming to different conclusions implies that it at least bears further examination.

And as far as Ms. Yates is concerned, she serves at the pleasure of the President. Didn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what was going to happen with her.

*blup* swamp sound

Maybe. But then generally leaders of democratic countries are considered to be mature enough not to fire people in a fit of pique.

If she overstepped her bounds, as is possible, there was plenty of time for a fair investigation and appropriate action. If there was doubt, as would seem sensible in such an unprecedented and important case, it would seem wise to perhaps take less drastic action whilst removing her power.

If one is so fearful of the head legal council for the country questioning an executive order and instructing her lawyers not to undertake any actions that might in future be deemed illegal and therefore damaging to the government that one feels the need to fire her immediately, I think that's a big warning flag.

I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome, I disagree with how it was performed. I think that sort of instant retribution against someone who has taken action that may actually have been in the government's favour (as is her job), only puts the government in greater danger.

Trump and his cabinet are clearly seeking to be extremely proactive in pursuing policy. That's great, but it puts them at higher risk of accidentally overstepping the law due to hasty action. Without proper legal advice from experts who are not afraid for their livelihood if they happen to disagree with the POTUS, it seems like a virtual certainty that at some point in the next four years Trump will enact something illegal..

She defied her boss, she was fired. Simple as that.

It wasn't her job to say what was or what wasn't the law.

Yeah, it really is. The Attorney General's is, among other things, the chief lawyer of the US government. She would not be doing her job if she didn't inform the president and his cabinet what was and wasn't legal.

Sometimes your job is to tell the boss when he's wrong. Especially in legal matters. Good bosses don't fire people for telling them unpleasant truths. She didn't even say it wasn't legal, she said that it may not be legal. And she's absolutely correct, it may not be. It will probably take a Supreme Court ruling to settle it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Steven Bannon is believed to have been a key influence in the Executive Order:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...bannon-the-man-behind-immigration-ban/8227690

It wasn't her job to say what was or what wasn't the law

But she's not saying that. She simply directed her employees not to defend the Executive Order if asked by the media.

The Order itself is under judicial review. Yates evidently wants clarification before publicly committing her office to a legal opinion. Because what's it going to look like if half her office attacks it in public and the other half defend it? If nothing else, it would reflect poorly on Trump because his own people don't even know what is happening - and he's already taking heat because key members of his national security team had no idea that it was coming. Especially when Steven Bannon is a permanent appointment to those same advisory comm

 

[Liquid]

It's like a real-life episode of American Dad. But one of those episodes where Stan Smith is an actual caricatured conservative instead of a humerous metrosexual.

 

[Johnnypenso]

True. However several states have enacted stays in order to nullify the executive order until it can be properly challenged. Unlike Trump, the courts cannot and will not simply enact their will on a whim. They will have a proper trial with all relevant parties and considered and well presented legal opinions. Their judgement will be transparent, well-reasoned and arrived at after great deliberation.

You know, not like firing someone in three hours because they happened to hold a different opinion.



I'm no lawyer, but the fact that many educated and experienced practitioners of law are coming to different conclusions implies that it at least bears further examination.



Maybe. But then generally leaders of democratic countries are considered to be mature enough not to fire people in a fit of pique.

If she overstepped her bounds, as is possible, there was plenty of time for a fair investigation and appropriate action. If there was doubt, as would seem sensible in such an unprecedented and important case, it would seem wise to perhaps take less drastic action whilst removing her power.

If one is so fearful of the head legal council for the country questioning an executive order and instructing her lawyers not to undertake any actions that might in future be deemed illegal and therefore damaging to the government that one feels the need to fire her immediately, I think that's a big warning flag.

I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome, I disagree with how it was performed. I think that sort of instant retribution against someone who has taken action that may actually have been in the government's favour (as is her job), only puts the government in greater danger.

Trump and his cabinet are clearly seeking to be extremely proactive in pursuing policy. That's great, but it puts them at higher risk of accidentally overstepping the law due to hasty action. Without proper legal advice from experts who are not afraid for their livelihood if they happen to disagree with the POTUS, it seems like a virtual certainty that at some point in the next four years Trump will enact something illegal..



Yeah, it really is. The Attorney General's is, among other things, the chief lawyer of the US government. She would not be doing her job if she didn't inform the president and his cabinet what was and wasn't legal.

Sometimes your job is to tell the boss when he's wrong. Especially in legal matters. Good bosses don't fire people for telling them unpleasant truths. She didn't even say it wasn't legal, she said that it may not be legal. And she's absolutely correct, it may not be. It will probably take a Supreme Court ruling to settle it.

The fact that many educated and experienced practitioners of law are coming to different conclusions also implies politics as usual. It's almost impossible to separate politics from truth these days. IMO she chose the wrong course of action. If she genuinely felt this way she should have informed the President of her legal opinion instead of going rogue, and, if he continued to disagree with her, she should have resigned on principle. By deciding she didn't want the EO supported by her team and acting on that decision without her boss's approval, IMO, she was telling the office of POTUS that she wasn't a part of the team. I'd have fired her simply for that. You don't embarass your boss and hope to keep your job. It smells of political posturing through and through.

 

[GTsail]

She defied her boss, she was fired. Simple as that.

It wasn't her job to say what was or what wasn't the law.

I disagree, her job as acting Attorney General is to represent the United States. She is not Donald Trump's personal lawyer. So her job is to give her expert advice as to what laws are constitutional or what laws are not constitutional.

During Ms Yates confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions (Trump's pick to be the next AG) questioned her, and told her that her job as Deputy AG was to tell the President if she was ever in a situation where she thought that a law was un-constitutional. So Ms Yates was doing her job exactly as requested by Jeff Sessions who is likely to be Trump's AG if he can get confirmed. She may or may not be correct in her interpretation of whether this travel ban is un-constitutional, but her job requires that she give her reasoned advice on the matter.

 

[xyloscissor]

It wasn't her job to say what was or what wasn't the law.

It probably felt good for the short time that it lasted.

her job requires that she give her reasoned advice on the matter.

This is true, but to whom?

Using a platform to express concern is normal, defying your boss however is not a smart move.

 

[CodeRedR51]

In that case our people are as well, so nice of you to understand that.

There you go twisting my words around again. Next time I won't even bother replying to you.

And yes, I do work for an automotive manufacture, and yes I 100% support alternative modes of transportation including electric cars.

Trump isn't saying that Global Warming research shouldn't be done, he is just saying that the US Government should not be funding it.

Why not? It's their problem too.

If the scientists that are researching Global Warming for NASA and all of those other agencies believe that strongly in it, then they should be seeking jobs in those private firms.

Disagree.

 

[Danoff]

There is a difference between sharing information and teaching it as fact. My concern is first off waste of time and money and second off using a platform for something it was never intended for. I know I am in the minority here but my leader appears to agree so there is that.

Some information is fact. For example, "We recorded the following temperature measurements from instrument X at time Y under these conditions. The temperature measurements are plotted alongside these other temperature measurements as documented in a prior publication. The following is a least squares fit to the data which minimizes data residuals under this set of apriori uncertainties for each of the forcing functions. Here's how we came up with the uncertainties. The estimate and a posteriori uncertainties for human forcing for the temperature data is as follows based on the above system...."

These are facts. When they are communicated (say, in a conference paper) they are taught.

I believe that the protesting on twitter and such is a disgrace to our country and it imbarrases me. Make no mistake, I'm not at all against the free flow of information.

I have no idea why you think people shouldn't be using twitter to express themselves.

 

[xyloscissor]

Next time I won't even bother replying to you.

Threat or promise? I guess we will find out shortly.

I don't think there is a reason for it but I guess I don't need too. Respect is a two way street, I point some things out that you don't like but that doesn't mean I don't listen to you.

You know there are jobs to be done, I agree with you about it and yet here we are.

 

[Hun200kmh]

This is true, but to whom?

Using a platform to express concern is normal, defying your boss however is not a smart move.

This wasn't about being "smart" as in "do what's needed to keep your job".


I suspect she is a (very) intelligent woman tehrefore I think she knew exactly what would follow. But as GTsail pointed out, she did her job and accepted the consequence.

 

[xyloscissor]

This wasn't about being "smart" as in "do what's needed to keep your job".


I suspect she is a (very) intelligent woman tehrefore I think she knew exactly what would follow. But as GTsail pointed out, she did her job and accepted the consequence.

I'm tired of the divide perhaps, it is very embarrassing. Trump is embarrassing, I don't see what good it will do to make it all out in the public for public's sake. I could be wrong but I don't think so, he has a job to do and he is doing his job, fussing all about is not going to work out well for anyone.

Some people want to see the world burn I suppose.

 

[doblocruiser]

Trump is exactly doing what I told he would do. It seems that people are more concerned / afraid to have a politician who is actually executing his program and stand for it.

 

[Danoff]

Trump is exactly doing what I told he would do. It seems that people are more concerned / afraid to have a politician who is actually executing his program and stand for it.

I'd wager that nobody that voted for Hillary is happy that Trump is using (abusing?) executive orders, which had been expanded under Bush Jr. and Obama. That's a larger voting group than for any other candidate. I'd also wager that some people voted for Trump because they can't stand Hillary and were hoping he wouldn't do the things he said (those people should wear bags of shame). So at least that group (which is a TON of people) are concerned/afraid to have Trump trying to make good on his promises.

We're talking about a President that lost the popular vote and got a bunch of "hold your nose" votes.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Trump is exactly doing what I told he would do. It seems that people are more concerned / afraid to have a politician who is actually executing his program and stand for it.

It is nice to have someone that does that, yes. But when it's controversial, no. And we're only one week into 4 years. It hasn't started off great, and it's only going to get worse.

 

[Joey D]

With regards to climate change research, I don't support the government funding it since they can skew the results to shape policy (and they have). I'd rather have independent research that is peer reviewed, debated, and vetted instead of having the government cherry pick which science they want to believe.

Same goes for any scientific research honestly.

 

[xyloscissor]

I'd also wager that some people voted for Trump because they can't stand Hillary and were hoping he wouldn't do the things he said

that doesn't make sense does it? You might be right on that but in my lifetime I've never seen a president do exactly what he said he was going to do with so much point to it. A man of his word if you ask me.

I Honestly think the EO thing is an abuse of power, at the moment it looks to me he's only over stretched the power to undo another who did it first, that doesn't make it right but it's how I see it. So far.

Popular vote means zero because we do not live in a democracy, oh dear I should not have said that.

 

[Touring Mars]

Trump is behaving like a child, testing the boundaries of what he can and cannot do - the problem is, however, that it is by no means clear that the 'checks and balances' that are supposedly built in to the US legal and political system are working any more, or at the very least they are ill-equipped to deal with the kind of executive orders that Trump is issuing... for example, Trump's ban on people coming in from Syria, Iran etc. is set to last for 90 days - how quickly can the US courts or congress act in order to stop that from happening? And, on top of that issue, Trump is already showing that he is willing to get rid of people who oppose him and is quickly surrounding himself with people who will not oppose him. So Trump is not only testing the water, he is also taking steps to ensure that even when he does he is increasingly likely to get away with it.

 

[doblocruiser]

Trump represents the USA. People from all classes and races have voted for him. He is executing program. Well it hurts if you don't agree but there are also millions who agree with his policy.

Trump is behaving like a child, testing the boundaries of what he can and cannot do - the problem is, however, that it is by no means clear that the 'checks and balances' that are supposedly built in to the US legal and political system are working any more, or at the very least they are ill-equipped to deal with the kind of executive orders that Trump is issuing... for example, Trump's ban on people coming in from Syria, Iran etc. is set to last for 90 days - how quickly can the US courts or congress act in order to stop that from happening? And, on top of that issue, Trump is already showing that he is willing to get rid of people who oppose him and is quickly surrounding himself with people who will not oppose him. So Trump is not only testing the water, he is also taking steps to ensure that even when he does he is increasingly likely to get away with it.

Isn't that what most politicians do but difference with Trump is he does it openly while other do it behind closed doors? It seems that Trump is not there to be liked by "everyone" but to execute his program.

 

[Danoff]

that doesn't make sense does it?

Sure doesn't. I don't think anyone should ever hold their nose while voting.

You might be right on that but in my lifetime I've never seen a president do exactly what he said he was going to do with so much point to it. A man of his word if you ask me.

I tend to agree that he's actually trying to deliver on his promises. I think he overestimates how much and how recklessly his constituents actually wanted that stuff done.

Popular vote means zero because we do not live in a democracy, oh dear I should not have said that.

Well, it doesn't mean that Hillary gets to move into the White House, but that doesn't mean it means zero. It doesn't mean everything, but it doesn't follow from that that it means nothing. Only if you live in an impossibly black and white world would it mean that. What it means is that Trump doesn't have as much support from the people of the US as, say, Obama did when he was re-elected. There are roughly 3 million more people that voted for Hillary than Trump. She got 66 million votes to his 63 million. Now, imagine for a moment that 1/3 of all trump voters were just protesting Hillary and didn't actually subscribe to anything trump said (I'd guess that's a low estimate). That means that 21 million trump voters don't actually support his agenda. Combine that with the 66 million that voted for Hillary and you get 87 million people who don't like what Trump is doing right now* and 42 million who presumably do.


*I left off third party votes, which is another chunk.

 

[xyloscissor]

Trump represents the USA. People from all classes and races have voted for him. He is executing program. Well it hurts if you don't agree but there are also millions who agree with his policy.

It seems to me that he is upholding the constitution, something many people do not like. They say they like it until they understand the document. I wish those types would just come right out and say the don't care for the law of our land.

 

[Danoff]

It seems to me that he is upholding the constitution, something many people do not like. They say they like it until they understand the document. I wish those types would just come right out and say the don't care for the law of our land.

Courts are ruling that the immigration executive order is running against the establishment clause and due process in the constitution. Courts are also gearing up for a 10th amendment fight over the sanctuary cities EO. I'm actually wondering how you think any of these executive orders uphold the constitution. At best they are neutral, and at worst they run afoul of the constitution almost across the board. I see one argument for this most recent EO (regulation repealing) upholding the constitution, but I'm probably the only one who sees that.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Why not? It's their problem too.

No, it is very much a global issue, and evidence points that most countries don't even fight it.

According to the UNESCO, the G20 nations accounted for 92% of all monies spent on scientific research in 2015. Furthermore, the US is the 8th largest spender of their GDP in Global Warming research (according to 2013 stats) in the world, behind nations such as Israel (who was the largest at 4.09% of GDP) and Japan (at 3.47% of GDP). China, according to 2013 numbers, only contributed about 2% of GDP to combat Global Warming, but produces the MOST CO2 emissions at 8715.31 million metric tons. See a discrepancy here? At least we are following international law in regards to CO2 emissions, but by all signs (lacking recent numbers for a trend) other civilized nations such as China do not respect international law.

Disagree.

Thus my original question, are you afraid that private firms do not carry the same weight in international talks as would a government-backed source in treaty negotiations? Let's be honest here, using a government-backed source is a lot like the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). They can only work with what you give it, so if you give it garbage, garbage will come out as a result.

 

[xyloscissor]

Courts are ruling that the immigration executive order is running against the establishment clause and due process in the constitution. Courts are also gearing up for a 10th amendment fight over the sanctuary cities EO. I'm actually wondering how you think any of these executive orders uphold the constitution. At best they are neutral, and at worst they run afoul of the constitution almost across the board. I see one argument for this most recent EO (regulation repealing) upholding the constitution, but I'm probably the only one who sees that.

I think they do not uphold the constitution on their own, I tried to make it clear but perhaps I did not. Obama abused the power in my eyes, as long as Trump is simply undoing those things I'm ok with it, once he starts to abuse it I'm going to have a problem with him as well.

You are not the only one, I noticed that as well.

You know, I did post about The Supreme Court recently, I'm not expecting you to see every post however so I'll just say a bit about it. It has to do with immigration and Obama,the court went against him and I know they don't like hearing the same tired story more than once in most cases.

Hope that made some sense.

 

[Dotini]

Courts are ruling that the immigration executive order is running against the establishment clause and due process in the constitution. Courts are also gearing up for a 10th amendment fight over the sanctuary cities EO. I'm actually wondering how you think any of these executive orders uphold the constitution. At best they are neutral, and at worst they run afoul of the constitution almost across the board. I see one argument for this most recent EO (regulation repealing) upholding the constitution, but I'm probably the only one who sees that.

It's delightful if the courts are taking up their proper constitutional role. For decades, the presidents have exceeded their's and the congress has abdicated its constitutional duties.

Our democracy is healthy only if all branches of the government perform their duties and the people are informed and involved.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

What I find so fascinating here is how many people are making comments suggesting people must obey Trump. Fall in with the party line or lose your job. Pledge allegiance to the new president. Etc etc.

Not only is it a pretty safe bet the people saying this certainly didn't take that approach with the last guy—no surprise there—but is that not the opposite attitude the country was founded on? Questioning authority, showing concern for how a government may negatively impact quality of life—these are important qualities in a supposed free country. There have been a lot of examples in history of environments where those critical of those in power were silenced. I can't think of many that had positive results in the long term.

Trump is behaving like a child, testing the boundaries of what he can and cannot do

 

[Danoff]

I think they do not uphold the constitution on their own, I tried to make it clear but perhaps I did not.

You think this:

It seems to me that he is upholding the constitution, something many people do not like. They say they like it until they understand the document. I wish those types would just come right out and say the don't care for the law of our land.

...means that you think the EOs aren't actually upholding the constitution? You have a funny way of expressing yourself.

Obama abused the power in my eyes, as long as Trump is simply undoing those things I'm ok with it, once he starts to abuse it I'm going to have a problem with him as well.

"Simply undoing those things". So Obama is responsible for immigration from

• Iraq.
• Iran.
• Syria.
• Yemen.
• Sudan.
• Somalia.
• Libya.

I had no idea! Is Obama also responsible for providing federal funding to cities that are lax in enforcing immigration laws? Pretty sure those cities were doing pretty much the same thing under Bush Jr. Now I'm wondering exactly what you think is being undone. There was one about mortgages I think, maybe that's what you're thinking of.

You know, I did post about The Supreme Court recently, I'm not expecting you to see every post however so I'll just say a bit about it. It has to do with immigration and Obama,the court went against him and I know they don't like hearing the same tired story more than once in most cases.

Hope that made some sense.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[xyloscissor]

What I find so fascinating here is how many people are making comments suggesting people must obey Trump. Fall in with the party line or lose your job. Pledge allegiance to the new president. Etc etc.

Who is saying that?

There can be questions, there can be disdain, and there can be I want to see the world burn. It is most unfortunate to me that people simply hate for hate's sake.

 

[Dotini]

Who is saying that?

There can be questions, there can be disdain, and there can be I want to see the world burn. It is most unfortunate to me that people simply hate for hate's sake.

People hate (and kill) for the sake of power and control. Perhaps there is a battle for control of the US between the deep state institutions representing entrenched establishment interests and the Trumpian revolutionaries. Now is the time we need a strong democracy that isn't fooled with the coming assassinations like we were with JFK.

 

[xyloscissor]

People hate (and kill) for the sake of power and control. Perhaps there is a battle for control of the US between the deep state institutions representing entrenched establishment interests and the Trumpian revolutionaries. Now is the time we need a strong democracy that isn't fooled with the coming assassinations like we were with JFK.

How funny that both of us mention JFK.

I'll try to put it in the simplest form that I can, I'm not down with any sort of corrupt power right? I say this funny thing that some don't understand but you might. Listen up! I will say that when I'm serious, as if I'm ever not serious Listen up chump!

I want to see power restored to the states and the constitution, that is what I want to see. Easy right?

Government should be small and we should always question it, in doing so we often find it necessary to question ourselves. Listen up chump I'm speaking of personal responsibility.

👍

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Who is saying that?

There can be questions, there can be disdain, and there can be I want to see the world burn. It is most unfortunate to me that people simply hate for hate's sake.

You are, actually:

For what it is worth I'm not happy with Trump in anyway but I do love my country, I love our systems, and I love the office...

Therefore he is my president and I will back him, it's time to move on people, spilt milk is something you wipe up.

Then again, you claimed you weren't making broad-stroke assumptions about all Liberals only to do it again on that very page. And as @Danoff just pointed out, you're directly contradicting yourself on all of this Constitution talk too.