President Donald Trump: The Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

He's laying the groundwork to blame the judiciary if/when there's some sort of attack.

 

I'm still not sure how a court can get around this clear law (if we assume the Plaintiffs have standing to begin with):

 

 

8 USC §1182

 

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

I think this comes down to SHOULD Trump be able to do this, not CAN he.

[bmags]

This is exactly why the minute-by-minute stuff has to stop. Not only do you get yourself all worked up over false news (love by the way how you and others rail against dumb Trump supporters for this and yet you've fallen for this twice, the other being his imminent attack on LGBTs that never happened), but you also give credence to his bulls*** attacks against the media for being wrong/unfair. His dumb supporters watch/listen to you and the media that covers and complains about these false stories and then they justify their belief that ALL media is wrong/bulls***.

 

The LGBT exec order leaked and was killed, it may have been floated on purpose, but doesn't mean it was false.

 

Real time will always be a bit messy. There is a difference though when people actually consume the corrected information instead of believing any information that confirms your beliefs, and discarding any corrected information as a conspiracy.

 

And also, at some point the fault of Trump being elected lies on Trump voters themselves. If there whole outlook of success is whether I'm unhappy about something, that's a poor way to run the country and make decisions.

[Quin]

That's be the democratic party. Exhibit A, Chicago. Exhibit B, Cook.

 

It's a constitutional city

[illinilaw08]

Deadspin had a great post yesterday where they put together clips of "the media" covering 75 of the 78.

 

Has anyone asked his admn yet why they chose those 78? I assume the response is going to be that they didn't mean the media didn't cover the stories at all, just that they didn't stress the terrorist angle enough.

 

I think it's pretty clear that their definition of media coverage means more than just the "media reported on the event." The administration seems to think if you don't say "radical Islamic terror attack," then you haven't adequately covered it. It's the same reason that the administration does not give attention to "white guy in Quebec shoots up mosque killing a handful of Canadian Muslims" and why "Dylan Roof shoots up black church" aren't on their list.

 

Jenks, even some of the more conservative posters on this site have been rather up in arms about the way Trump has conducted himself over the last two weeks. From nonsense like claiming 3-5M people voted illegally (with no supporting evidence), to the fact that he hung up on the President of Australia (an ally), to the fact that he continues to falsely claim that the murder rate is the highest it has been in 45 years (which is demonstrably false), to the fact that he still hasn't removed himself from his conflicts of interest, to the fact that he places aides in press conferences to give the impression that he is receiving standing ovations, to the clownish way the administration rolled out the travel ban including, but not limited to, the complete lack of instruction to people on the ground as to how they are to handle detentions. I mean, even if you support the ban, or are ambivalent about the ban, you have to be furious about the roll out. And that's just off the top of my head. If that were Clinton or Obama's first week, the Right would have (rightly) exploded.

 

People have every reason to be concerned with the way that Trump has conducted himself, and his vision for this country. Referring to concerns about any of the above as an "overreaction circle jerk" is ridiculous.

[illinilaw08]

This is exactly why the minute-by-minute stuff has to stop. Not only do you get yourself all worked up over false news (love by the way how you and others rail against dumb Trump supporters for this and yet you've fallen for this twice, the other being his imminent attack on LGBTs that never happened), but you also give credence to his bulls*** attacks against the media for being wrong/unfair. His dumb supporters watch/listen to you and the media that covers and complains about these false stories and then they justify their belief that ALL media is wrong/bulls***.

 

Jenks, how do you feel about a President who (whether jokingly or not) offered to destroy a state lawmakers' career for putting pressure on law enforcement regarding asset seizure and forfeiture laws (linked earlier by SS, but here's the link again - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trum...-idUSKBN15M2BU)

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Look, there's no excusing a lot of what he does. I'm not at all trying to defend that. I'm with you all that many of his executive orders fly against what makes our country great and 95% of what his admn says is false and embarrassing and completely un-Presidential. But that doesn't mean we have to go to the extreme and continually remark how he's Hitler 2.0 or that the country is doomed or that we're all f***ed because of what he's doing.

 

Guess what guys, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants (within constitutional restraints). That's how this game is set up. Is jokingly saying you're going to ruin a state lawmaker's career worse than FDR trying to pack the court? Are we pretending like a President has never tried to monopolize power or assert his authority before?

 

Again, not excusing it, just trying to put it into perspective.

[southsider2k5]

I'm still not sure how a court can get around this clear law (if we assume the Plaintiffs have standing to begin with):

 

 

8 USC §1182

 

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

 

I think this comes down to SHOULD Trump be able to do this, not CAN he.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[Soxbadger]

Look, there's no excusing a lot of what he does. I'm not at all trying to defend that. I'm with you all that many of his executive orders fly against what makes our country great and 95% of what his admn says is false and embarrassing and completely un-Presidential. But that doesn't mean we have to go to the extreme and continually remark how he's Hitler 2.0 or that the country is doomed or that we're all f***ed because of what he's doing.

 

Guess what guys, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants (within constitutional restraints). That's how this game is set up. Is jokingly saying you're going to ruin a state lawmaker's career worse than FDR trying to pack the court? Are we pretending like a President has never tried to monopolize power or assert his authority before?

 

Again, not excusing it, just trying to put it into perspective.

 

Well I agree and disagree. I absolutely agree that if you keep comparing Trump to Hitler that it will eventually just become noise and then people wont be able to discern what is a "disaster" versus a "mistake."

 

I disagree with the fact that people should not be able to express their opinions on what they believe. Just because FDR/Obama/ did it, doesnt mean that we as a country should let it continue to happen, it doesnt mean we shouldnt question whether it is right or wrong. Maybe what he is doing is within his power, maybe it isnt, but if you dont think it is in his power or if you think it shouldnt be in his power, than you should absolutely let your opinion be heard.

 

But Trump is really doing this to himself. When you antagonize people, some of them actually fight back. And some do care about how our country is perceived and believe Trump is just dragging our names through the mud.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm still not sure how a court can get around this clear law (if we assume the Plaintiffs have standing to begin with):

 

There are a few lines of argument I've heard.

 

1. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act prevents discrimination based on nationality.

2. The EO violates religious freedom because it targets Muslims.

3. The EO is such a poorly written cluster that it can't reasonably be followed (hence all the chaos that occurred)

[southsider2k5]

There are a few lines of argument I've heard.

 

1. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act prevents discrimination based on nationality.

2. The EO violates religious freedom because it targets Muslims.

3. The EO is such a poorly written cluster that it can't reasonably be followed (hence all the chaos that occurred)

 

Our entire immigration system is illegal by that standard.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Our entire immigration system is illegal by that standard.

 

What do you mean?

[illinilaw08]

Look, there's no excusing a lot of what he does. I'm not at all trying to defend that. I'm with you all that many of his executive orders fly against what makes our country great and 95% of what his admn says is false and embarrassing and completely un-Presidential. But that doesn't mean we have to go to the extreme and continually remark how he's Hitler 2.0 or that the country is doomed or that we're all f***ed because of what he's doing.

 

Guess what guys, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants (within constitutional restraints). That's how this game is set up. Is jokingly saying you're going to ruin a state lawmaker's career worse than FDR trying to pack the court? Are we pretending like a President has never tried to monopolize power or assert his authority before?

 

Again, not excusing it, just trying to put it into perspective.

 

For the record, I'm not on board with comparing Trump to Hitler. And I don't think there has been that much of that in this thread (there has been some). I think it is fair to point out the fact that Trump is sure acting like an authoritarian, particularly in his relationship with the press. And that's a concerning trait that needs to be monitored.

 

The first point here is that if you don't like the direction the government is going in, you organize, and you let your voice be heard. You don't just say, "hey guys, I don't like what he's doing, but he won the election so he gets to do what he wants."

 

The second point - which I think is probably the larger and more important point - is that you continue to call attention to the bad stuff that Trump is doing - particularly with respect to the false and embarrassing stuff that comes from both the President directly, and his advisers. You cannot allow outright lies from the Presidency to become normalized behavior.

 

And the final point here - while we have certainly had Presidents wield the power of the executive to try to assert their authority (at a minimum), we have never (to my knowledge) had a President attack the media like Trump has, or straight out lie to his constituents like Trump has on simple, verifiable facts. This is an anomaly of a Presidency, and we're less than a month in. Silence and apathy allows this behavior to normalize.

[Jenksismyhero]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

That's Congress, not the Executive. And I don't think prohibiting aliens from entering the country is infringing on the establishment or exercise of religion.

[illinilaw08]

That's Congress, not the Executive. And I don't think prohibiting aliens from entering the country is infringing on the establishment or exercise of religion.

 

Isn't it if the basis for prohibiting aliens is their religion?

[StrangeSox]

I thought there were due process concerns as well?

[CrimsonWeltall]

That's Congress, not the Executive. And I don't think prohibiting aliens from entering the country is infringing on the establishment or exercise of religion.

 

The Bill of Rights applies to all levels and branches of the government. If the immigration and travel ban is targeting people on a religious basis (and there's a good argument is does), that seems like a 1A violation.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Bill of Rights applies to all levels and branches of the government. If the immigration and travel ban is targeting people on a religious basis (and there's a good argument is does), that seems like a 1A violation.

 

Isn't it if the basis for prohibiting aliens is their religion?

 

 

I don't see how you can make that conclusion on its face when the ban affects some muslim countries but not others and it applies to all citizens of those countries not just muslims.

Edited February 8, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[illinilaw08]

I don't see how you can make that conclusion on its face when the ban affects some muslim countries but not others and it applies to all citizens of those countries not just muslims.

 

It gives priority to Christians from those Muslim countries, and all the evidence on the intent on the ban is that it is intended to be a legal ban on Muslims (see Trump and Giuliani comments).

[StrangeSox]

It gives priority to Christians from those Muslim countries, and all the evidence on the intent on the ban is that it is intended to be a legal ban on Muslims (see Trump and Giuliani comments).

 

This is still up on the campaign website

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases...lim-immigration

 

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

 

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

 

I still can't believe that America elected this person.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but do those rights extend to non-citizens? I wouldn't think so, but knowing our SCOTUS decisions on illegal immigrants i'm sure the law is every citizen of the world has constitutional rights.

 

Also, recent history aside, is this a decision we want on our books? That our government can't deny a class of aliens from entering the country? What if we go to war against Iran? Wouldn't we want to be able to bar them?

Edited February 8, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[CrimsonWeltall]

I don't see how you can make that conclusion on its face when the ban affects some muslim countries but not others and it applies to all citizens of those countries not just muslims.

 

The EO carves out exceptions for people of "minority religions". Trump was explicit that he wants Christians from those countries to be able to come here.

 

Discriminating against some Muslims, but not all Muslims, is still discrimination against Muslims.

[Jenksismyhero]

Some quick googling suggests persons outside of US territory do not have constitutional rights. I suppose that's where the standing argument comes into play.

[Soxbadger]

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but do those rights extend to non-citizens? I wouldn't think so, but knowing our SCOTUS decisions on illegal immigrants i'm sure the law is every citizen of the world has constitutional rights.

 

Also, recent history aside, is this a decision we want on our books? That our government can't deny a class of aliens from entering the country? What if we go to war against Iran? Wouldn't we want to be able to bar them?

 

Jenks,

 

Non-citizens who are currently in the US have rights in the US. Non-citizens not currently in the US, without any sort of visa/greencard etc, would have no US rights.

 

Is this a decision we want on the books?

 

Absolutely. Or do you think it would be okay to deny every German from entering the US, even if they were a Jew, in WWII?

 

Blanket restrictions are lazy and overreaching.

[southsider2k5]

Jenks,

 

Non-citizens who are currently in the US have rights in the US. Non-citizens not currently in the US, without any sort of visa/greencard etc, would have no US rights.

 

Is this a decision we want on the books?

 

Absolutely. Or do you think it would be okay to deny every German from entering the US, even if they were a Jew, in WWII?

 

Blanket restrictions are lazy and overreaching.

 

This policy isn't even that smart. This is more like denying ALL Germans admission so that we can keep the Jews out. The explicit and stated target here IS Muslims. The administration has flat out stated this on many occasions, and this policy is consistent with their statements.

[Balta1701]

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but do those rights extend to non-citizens? I wouldn't think so, but knowing our SCOTUS decisions on illegal immigrants i'm sure the law is every citizen of the world has constitutional rights.

 

Also, recent history aside, is this a decision we want on our books? That our government can't deny a class of aliens from entering the country? What if we go to war against Iran? Wouldn't we want to be able to bar them?

Let's ask that question in reverse. Is a decision saying that the government can discriminate against immigrants from a country because we later went to war with that country one we want on the books?

 

Well, technically it still is.