2k17 /pol/

[Screemonster]

Bottom post of the previous page:

the thing is, if there's one group I could trust to get a fucking swastika right, it's neo-nazis

like

it's kinda their thing

if I see something that looks like a fucked-up swastika, I'm like "gee, who's most likely to fuck up a swastika? An actual, real, honest-to-god seig-heil, saluting, 1488 national socialist? Are those the sorts of people to not know what a swastika looks like?"

[Super Aggro Crag]

Sarah Silverman is a jewish

[oranges]

wow that was actually a hilarious twitter thread for once

[bandit]

ok people still on team trump, please defend this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38965557

[Malkevin]

Oh wow someone in his cabinet was over eager to get stuck in to his job a month earlier than he should've.

Oh shock horror, better impeach trump and drag him and his cronies before the Hague and have them shot

[Whoisthere]

You are not Silverman's friends and now it's obvious to her. Are you happy now?

[Whoisthere]

Are the British Royal Family really shape-shifting lizards? Does that mean they are jewish?

[Malkevin]

Yes
No

[ShadowDimentio]

ok people still on team trump, please defend this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38965557

This really doesn't strike me as a big deal. The guy talked diplomacy with the Ruskies before he technically should have. Really don't think this warranted a resignation, but I guess if he didn't the democrats and liberal media would have just clutched onto it forever and never let it go (>implying they won't anyways), so I guess he didn't want to bring more trouble to Trump.

Good on him if that's the case.

[cedarbridge]

ok people still on team trump, please defend this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38965557

This really doesn't strike me as a big deal. The guy talked diplomacy with the Ruskies before he technically should have. Really don't think this warranted a resignation, but I guess if he didn't the democrats and liberal media would have just clutched onto it forever and never let it go (>implying they won't anyways), so I guess he didn't want to bring more trouble to Trump.

Good on him if that's the case.

Yeah, the Soviet era style pearl clutching over Russia from MSM outlets is reaching all sorts of hysterical.

[Super Aggro Crag]

Not cuz of gommunsim or anything, they hate the russkiys because they don't tolerate Muslim terrorism and aren't fans of gay sex.

[ShadowDimentio]

It's funny because these days people are more worried about being obsoleted by a robot or having the country turned into a shithole like France that they couldn't give less of a fuck about the Russians.

The MSM constantly parading around trivial bullshit like it's the final nail in the coffin for Trump is just immunizing him for absolutely all criticism. I don't expect it'll be long until some crazy democrat will try to move for impeachment of him, get absolutely blasted by the republicans and the sane democrats, and Trump will become god emperor for life.

[Whoisthere]

Why did Trump ban dem muslims? Is it just a populist move or what? It seems pretty retarded to me, but I want to like Trump I guess but also can't be assed to do my own research on murican politics since I'm a euro.

[InsaneHyena]

Because it was his campaign promise, which he fulfilled in a pretty half-assed way, but I guess US still needs Saudi Arabia.

[Whoisthere]

Does it actually achieve anything of value?

[ShadowDimentio]

Depending on how effective you think it'll be you're either wasting the time of some immigrants but not hurting them or greatly slowing the tide of terrorists coming into the US to fuck shit up.

The big arguments ironically haven't been about how effective they'll be, because to argue that you have to admit the middle east is a hotbed of terrorism, but how the immigrants that wanted to come to the US and be productive law-abiding citizens are now going to go join ISIS and blow up a bus, or how the president doesn't have the authority to do this, both being fucking retarded arguments.

[Screemonster]

The MSM constantly parading around trivial bullshit like it's the final nail in the coffin for Trump is just immunizing him for absolutely all criticism.

Take small doses of retarded scandal daily to build immunity to larger scandals.

[XSI]

Does it actually achieve anything of value?

Considering the majority of muslim extremists are from countries not effected by the ban?
Nope

[InsaneHyena]

Reminder

[Super Aggro Crag]

What's her degree in? Doctor of lying?

[ShadowDimentio]

Does it actually achieve anything of value?

Considering the majority of muslim extremists are from countries not effected by the ban?
Nope

Tell that to the Obama administration, they made the list, Trump enacted it, the racist scumbag.

[InsaneHyena]

What's her degree in? Doctor of lying?

She has "MD" in her twitter username. Which means that...

[cedarbridge]

Why did Trump ban dem muslims? Is it just a populist move or what? It seems pretty retarded to me, but I want to like Trump I guess but also can't be assed to do my own research on murican politics since I'm a euro.

He issued an order blocking ingress from a list of countries produced by the previous administration (Obama.) The stated reason was to give administrative agencies time to review the policies in place for vetting the ingress of persons from those countries as areas of interest related to terrorism. The order doesn't mention muslims or islam. This shouldn't be a major story since every president entering office has issued a similar ban on one or more countries immediately or soon after taking office.

Does it actually achieve anything of value?

Policies that aren't currently active generally don't achieve their aims while inactive.

[Super Aggro Crag]

No wonder the doctor would support the regime of Barack "lets make poor people poorer by forcing them to pay for health insurance they can't afford so the pills and hospital industries can crank up their prices again" HUSSEIN Obama.

[Screemonster]

journalism.jpg

[MisterPerson]

Why did Trump ban dem muslims? Is it just a populist move or what? It seems pretty retarded to me, but I want to like Trump I guess but also can't be assed to do my own research on murican politics since I'm a euro.

He issued an order blocking ingress from a list of countries produced by the previous administration (Obama.) The stated reason was to give administrative agencies time to review the policies in place for vetting the ingress of persons from those countries as areas of interest related to terrorism. The order doesn't mention muslims or islam. This shouldn't be a major story since every president entering office has issued a similar ban on one or more countries immediately or soon after taking office.

The 9th circuit's ruling actually covers all this in detail. But several caveats before we continue:

They weren't making a ruling on the merits of the case simply because they don't have time to do so. Instead they just laid out what should happen in the meantime while some other court makes that ruling.
They specifically said they haven't reviewed all the evidence because the case is "urgent" and they needed to reach a ruling quickly.
The way the appeal was set up was adversarial to the government. Since the injunction was already in place, it was up to them to prove the injunction should be lifted, not on Washington to prove it should be kept.
They do say that there are competing interests at stake that support the government's desire for the EO, but they kind of gloss over the point under the premise that a later court can make a decision on the matter.
The government has decided not to pursue the case any further. They're going to craft a different EO instead of appealing to the Supreme Court or waiting for a case on the merits. You can draw conclusions from that all you want, but it's a good piece of information to know.

They laid out the reasons why the injunction was filed. Washington state and its citizens would have harm caused by the EO, that harm would go away if it was blocked, there was a potential legality issue with the EO, and the government failed to cite a rational basis reasoning for the EO. The first two are non-controversial opinions that I think everybody can agree with. The third I'll get into in a moment, because I want to draw special attention to that fourth issue. The 9th circuit asked the government to cite a recent terror attack that would have been prevented from this EO. They could not. They asked if there was a known or suspected terror plot that would be prevented or hampered by the EO. They refused to cite one. Instead they claimed that the president has unlimited authority on the matter, a notion the 9th called ridiculous. I want to stress that it's not that the government couldn't defend the EO or failed to, they simply didn't even try. It's hard to win win win when you concede.

But let's take a step back and talk about those potential constitutional legality issues since that's the really controversial part. They primarily focused on the 5th amendment, specifically the "No person shall be deprived of life or limb without due process" clause. As covered above the 9th had already determined the EO was arbitrary and unnecessary, and due process by definition is rational and restrained, you can imagine they found that aliens were being deprived of proper due process. They took another step and also pointed out that citizens and lawful residents were also being deprived of due process since not only would some of them be disbarred from leaving and returning, they also couldn't invite their family members if they were from the 7 barred countries. Interestingly they also cited a possible 1st amendment problem "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" because Trump had called this a Muslim ban while campaigning. I'm not drawing a conclusion, that's literally their argument. However they didn't go into detail on this because the due process problems were enough to come to the conclusion they came to.

But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

[ShadowDimentio]

Notes:

FOR
President has complete jurisdiction over immigration
Presidents do this all the time historically for most any reason, Trump isn't special
Non-US citizens aren't bound by the constitution at all, due process doesn't exist for them
People who were supposed to be let in at worst had their time wasted and were eventually let in, they weren't gassed or anything
The EO was very clear to not be a muslim ban, even went as far as using countries of Obama's people's choosing

AGAINST
Wasn't implemented well
Probably wouldn't be very effective, was in effect for so little time nobody could confirm anything
There wasn't a specific linchpin Trump could point to to say why we needed this

The EO is certainly impractical but it's not illegal, stupid damn courts smdh

[cedarbridge]

Why did Trump ban dem muslims? Is it just a populist move or what? It seems pretty retarded to me, but I want to like Trump I guess but also can't be assed to do my own research on murican politics since I'm a euro.

He issued an order blocking ingress from a list of countries produced by the previous administration (Obama.) The stated reason was to give administrative agencies time to review the policies in place for vetting the ingress of persons from those countries as areas of interest related to terrorism. The order doesn't mention muslims or islam. This shouldn't be a major story since every president entering office has issued a similar ban on one or more countries immediately or soon after taking office.

The 9th circuit's ruling actually covers all this in detail. But several caveats before we continue:

They weren't making a ruling on the merits of the case simply because they don't have time to do so. Instead they just laid out what should happen in the meantime while some other court makes that ruling.
They specifically said they haven't reviewed all the evidence because the case is "urgent" and they needed to reach a ruling quickly.
The way the appeal was set up was adversarial to the government. Since the injunction was already in place, it was up to them to prove the injunction should be lifted, not on Washington to prove it should be kept.
They do say that there are competing interests at stake that support the government's desire for the EO, but they kind of gloss over the point under the premise that a later court can make a decision on the matter.
The government has decided not to pursue the case any further. They're going to craft a different EO instead of appealing to the Supreme Court or waiting for a case on the merits. You can draw conclusions from that all you want, but it's a good piece of information to know.

They laid out the reasons why the injunction was filed. Washington state and its citizens would have harm caused by the EO, that harm would go away if it was blocked, there was a potential legality issue with the EO, and the government failed to cite a rational basis reasoning for the EO. The first two are non-controversial opinions that I think everybody can agree with. The third I'll get into in a moment, because I want to draw special attention to that fourth issue. The 9th circuit asked the government to cite a recent terror attack that would have been prevented from this EO. They could not. They asked if there was a known or suspected terror plot that would be prevented or hampered by the EO. They refused to cite one. Instead they claimed that the president has unlimited authority on the matter, a notion the 9th called ridiculous. I want to stress that it's not that the government couldn't defend the EO or failed to, they simply didn't even try. It's hard to win win win when you concede.

But let's take a step back and talk about those potential constitutional legality issues since that's the really controversial part. They primarily focused on the 5th amendment, specifically the "No person shall be deprived of life or limb without due process" clause. As covered above the 9th had already determined the EO was arbitrary and unnecessary, and due process by definition is rational and restrained, you can imagine they found that aliens were being deprived of proper due process. They took another step and also pointed out that citizens and lawful residents were also being deprived of due process since not only would some of them be disbarred from leaving and returning, they also couldn't invite their family members if they were from the 7 barred countries. Interestingly they also cited a possible 1st amendment problem "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" because Trump had called this a Muslim ban while campaigning. I'm not drawing a conclusion, that's literally their argument. However they didn't go into detail on this because the due process problems were enough to come to the conclusion they came to.

But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

We've been picking the various court decisions apart in my law school classes as they come through. There's a lot of arguments that the court makes and doesn't make. I'd go through it in more detail but that's a lot of posting to do while I'm supposed to be listening to lecture.

[bandit]

basically trump fell victim to the classic "never talk about a legal matter except through your lawyers" trap, the moment he uttered the words "Muslim ban" he was fucked

[MisterPerson]

Notes:

FOR
President has complete jurisdiction over immigration
Presidents do this all the time historically for most any reason, Trump isn't special
Non-US citizens aren't bound by the constitution at all, due process doesn't exist for them
People who were supposed to be let in at worst had their time wasted and were eventually let in, they weren't gassed or anything
The EO was very clear to not be a muslim ban, even went as far as using countries of Obama's people's choosing

AGAINST
Wasn't implemented well
Probably wouldn't be very effective, was in effect for so little time nobody could confirm anything
There wasn't a specific linchpin Trump could point to to say why we needed this

The EO is certainly impractical but it's not illegal, stupid damn courts smdh

Non-US citizens are absolutely bound by the constitution and are absolutely required to receive due process at every stage of the US government's interactions with them.

We've been picking the various court decisions apart in my law school classes as they come through. There's a lot of arguments that the court makes and doesn't make. I'd go through it in more detail but that's a lot of posting to do while I'm supposed to be listening to lecture.

I've not personally read the original judge's ruling on the matter so for all I know he used some faulty logic there, which would obviously invalidate the injunction to begin with. And yeah, obviously you can disagree with the ruling the court came to. Personally I'm not fully convinced by their due process argument as it relates to current citizens and lawful nationals. I understand the argument being made though and I can't argue against it based on the evidence available.

I just wanted to give everyone some background information on the matter so they can understand why the court ruled the way it did. It wasn't arbitrary and it wasn't "LOL THE LIBERAL 9TH CIRCUIT STRIKES AGAIN".

[ShadowDimentio]

>Everyone is bound to the US constitution

?????????????????

It's the United States constitution. How would some wannabe immigrant in the middle east be bound to it.

You're bound to the law of the land you're standing on, with the singular exception of extraterritoriality, which ONLY applies on embassies and to ambassadors. Those immigrants have zero right to come into the country, and Trump has the complete power to prevent them from coming in at any time for any reason. The ONLY time an immigrant would be subject to US law and order is AFTER they arrive in the US.

[Screemonster]

>Everyone is bound to the US constitution

?????????????????

It's the United States constitution. How would some wannabe immigrant in the middle east be bound to it.

the immigrants aren't bound to it

the government is

that's kinda what a constitution entails, it's the rules that the government has to follow.

[Cik]

Non-US citizens are absolutely bound by the constitution and are absolutely required to receive due process at every stage of the US government's interactions with them.

wait, what

so whoa whoa, do the laws apply, or just the constitution? both? does that mean that criminal syndicates have second amendment rights, but they don't have to follow our gun laws? so if we 'steal' their guns at the border we are violating our own constitution?

i don't even want to start going through the bizarre consequences of this. it's one thing to conduct diplomacy and foreign outreach within the SPIRIT of the law/constitution, but saying "everyone in the world is under the aegis of the constitution" is a little.. what?

please clarify what you mean exactly by this, because i don't even think it's possible to operate like this, let alone a good idea.

[ShadowDimentio]

>Everyone is bound to the US constitution

?????????????????

It's the United States constitution. How would some wannabe immigrant in the middle east be bound to it.

the immigrants aren't bound to it

the government is

that's kinda what a constitution entails, it's the rules that the government has to follow.

Good thing Trump hasn't done anything wrong, then.

[MisterPerson]

Non-US citizens are absolutely bound by the constitution and are absolutely required to receive due process at every stage of the US government's interactions with them.

wait, what

so whoa whoa, do the laws apply, or just the constitution? both? does that mean that criminal syndicates have second amendment rights, but they don't have to follow our gun laws? so if we 'steal' their guns at the border we are violating our own constitution?

i don't even want to start going through the bizarre consequences of this. it's one thing to conduct diplomacy and foreign outreach within the SPIRIT of the law/constitution, but saying "everyone in the world is under the aegis of the constitution" is a little.. what?

please clarify what you mean exactly by this, because i don't even think it's possible to operate like this, let alone a good idea.

What the fuck are you talking about? The 2nd amendment says that people have a general right to bare firearms. This is not an unrestricted right; the government is free to limit certain kinds of firearms, under what manner firearms can be sold, who is allowed to sell them, who is allowed to buy them, the exact manner one is allowed to carry, etc. To actually take away firearms, however, requires some kind of justifiable reason to do so such as being a criminal, committing a crime in the act of transporting the crime, committing a crime while in possession of the firearm and the ability to have a fair ability to rebuff the government's claim(s). Both sections are clearly provided for with regards to illegal immigrants smuggling guns across the border, so yes, the government is able to seize firearms in that situation. That's why they go to court and have deportation hearings, for example, and if you can afterwards prove you are in fact a lawful alien or resident, welp, that was your right under the law. Unless you broke the law in other ways, but that's up to the government to prove.

Obviously this only applies to the US and interactions between the US government and people. Citizens interacting with each other and interactions not involving the US government have their own laws. Come on man, this is common sense shit. When I said "non citizens are bound by the constitution", I should have said "sections of the constitution that say 'people' or use other such language apply to citizens, legal residents, and unlawful residents alike".

[ShadowDimentio]

You fail to realize that the government (read: Trump) has complete jurisdiction over immigration. The constitution doesn't extend to people not on US soil (barring embassies but those are an exception), and doubly doesn't extend to people not on US soil that aren't even citizens. He's 1000% within his authority as given to him by the Obama administration to stop any and all immigration from anywhere for any reason at any time for any duration.

It's as the old adage goes: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

And even if we were in some magical world where the US constitution was law everywhere, the court had a fucking terrible case that he was in breach of it. Those immigrants weren't denied life or limb, they weren't allowed to come into the US. That's harmful only in the most severe cases of mental gymnastics, so the 5th amendment argument is bust. What about the other one then, that it was in breach of the 1st amendmant? Oh no wait, this very obviously wasn't a muslim ban, Trump, again, used a list that Obama's people made, so there's no case there either.

What's left then? Not much of anything.

[Super Aggro Crag]

I had a dream shadow dimentio lived in an underground bunker near the park I sleep

[ShadowDimentio]

What did I look like and was I crazy

[Super Aggro Crag]

A beardless teen and you were just real awkward about living underground.

[MisterPerson]

You fail to realize that the government (read: Trump) has complete jurisdiction over immigration. The constitution doesn't extend to people not on US soil (barring embassies but those are an exception), and doubly doesn't extend to people not on US soil that aren't even citizens. He's 1000% within his authority as given to him by the Obama administration to stop any and all immigration from anywhere for any reason at any time for any duration.

This isn't about immigration, it's about people already on US soil not being allowed to leave and return. Or people who already left with a visa and passport and are now stranded outside the country. Or people denied visits from foreign nationals that would have otherwise been allowed (I have mixed feelings about this argument). These are fairly serious problems for the people affected. I'd imagine you'd be quite pissed if the government said you couldn't leave your home state simply because you were born in Alabama! And yes, some of the people being denied entry do not have due process rights, it's just that some of them do. And everyone does as long as they're here.

I want to stress the whole case was extremely adversarial to the government. They had to prove that not enacting the EO was "harmful", and that they were likely to win the eventual case. They may eventually do so if they tried despite what the 9th circuit thinks. They've certainly been wrong before, as all circuit courts are from time to time.

[cedarbridge]

Non-US citizens are absolutely bound by the constitution and are absolutely required to receive due process at every stage of the US government's interactions with them.

Actually, you'll find the case law leans against this in the post-gitmo era. The courts recognized that anyone who is a fullly non-citizen does not enjoy any of the benefits of the constitution directly but is afforded certain protections that amount basically to "hearing the charges against you and the ability to contest them." And those protections only exist as an escape hatch to get out of custody and leave the country. They've never been used to validate entry by non-citizens.

[Drynwyn]

The current case law precedent for the constitution applying to non-citizens is quite straightforward. The constitution uses the word "person" and "citizen" at different points. "Person" applies to non-citizens, "citizen" does not.

[ShadowDimentio]

A beardless teen and you were just real awkward about living underground.

I have a beard though, your dream me is a FRAUD

[Super Aggro Crag]

A riot

In sweden

[ShadowDimentio]

Whodunnit, whitey or darky?

[Malkevin]

Agent Orange

[cedarbridge]

Take a guess
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39047455

also, lmao that 1/2 page story followed by a 1/2 page "Fuck Trump" damage control

[ShadowDimentio]

Trump tomorrow: "Oh heeeyyyy, look at this. Look, look at how great Sweden is doing. Look. LOOK."

[Cik]

headlines inc:

ARE PRO-TRUMP SWEDISH AGITATORS FOMENTING YOUTH RIOTS IN SWEDEN???!??!!

article: we've found no evidence of this

[XSI]

If an article can be summed up as "No" or "We don't know", then it's time to consider whether or not its worth writing it

[Screemonster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridg ... _headlines

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.