1. We are looking for a volunteer to help out with entering the DC and Marvel comics solicitations. If you are interested, please contact Harley.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Just in time for Halloween, enter for a chance to win a $50 Gift Card from FUN.com! Details here.
    Dismiss Notice

News and Politics 2017 (General Political Discussion thread)

Discussion in 'Cafe toonzone' started by wonderfly, Jan 3, 2017.

  1. Dreyfus

    Dreyfus Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes, but on a strictly legal basis all that matters is what the order itself says, which is unfortunate as he obviously just wrote a legal version of his Muslim ban, which will probably work in court. I think the only illegal action that could arise from all this would be if the administration for whatever reason chose to ignore federal court-ordered stays on their actions, which I find unlikely.

    Giuliani's interview, contrary to popular opinion, is not a bombshell to me. It just shows that Trump's administration went about this the right/legal way. e.g. He's not saying it's really a Muslim ban disguised as a ban on people from dangerous places, it is itself simply a ban on people from what they deem as dangerous places, which whether right or wrong, is legal.
     
    #101 Dreyfus, Jan 31, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  2. EinBebop

    EinBebop Data Dog

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    14,399
    Likes Received:
    3
    My understanding is that a judge would be examining it to discern if there was intent to discriminate, even if that wasn't the wording. And there's no reason they wouldn't take into account the words of one of the framers.

    Even without the testimony of Guiliani, I think they were already on shaky ground by making special provisions for the religious minorities in the banned countries, since in the framework of this order, religious minorities = all non-Muslims.
     
  3. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    Whoa, whoa, whoa...people keep bringing up the constitutionality of the ban, and talking about suing for religious discrimination.

    I brought this up months ago in the election thread: Non U.S. citizens don't have U.S. Constitutional rights. "Freedom of Religion" doesn't apply to refugees: It is perfectly legal for us to look at religion when deciding who can come stay in our country.

    Looking at that video Dreyfus posted, I see people are also criticizing Trump for saying he will work on promoting Christian refugees (from places like Syria), and how up till now, it's only Muslim refugees that have gotten priority.

    There is some truth to that, according to this article from last year.

    From that article:

    On the other hand, this new article (written a couple days ago) wants to overly focus on Trump's word "impossible" - as in "Mr. President, apparently it's NOT impossible for Christians to get in" (Trump speaks in broad terminology, get over it). But that article has the current stats, which are even more shocking:

     
    • Like Like x 1
    #103 wonderfly, Jan 31, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  4. EinBebop

    EinBebop Data Dog

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    14,399
    Likes Received:
    3
    Do you have any speculation on why Giuliani thinks a straight Muslim ban wouldn't hold up in a legal battle?
     
  5. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    I think what he was trying to say was more a fear of political backlash as opposed to legal backlash. Look, I don't think a pure "religious ban" was ever truly in consideration - Trump himself walked back the "ALL Muslims" aspect of the ban back during the campaign, switching it to immigrants from terror dominated countries. Like many topics, Trump speaks grandiose at first, but then scales back a bit closer to reality as time goes on. The Trump Administration (using Obama's own policy as a guideline) laid out this executive order as a "first step" in reviewing our immigration/refugee system.

    We do ask about a person's religion when they apply to come live here. It's ONE aspect of background screening. And by the way, most of Trump's supporters are perfectly fine with the ban.

    From that article:

     
    #105 wonderfly, Jan 31, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  6. Spideyzilla

    Spideyzilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    259
    I'm no legal scholar, but I think you're probably right in terms of the legality of this thing. It's very true that non American citizens don't have any constitutional rights, so I don't see why anyone can claim discrimination. It is also true, though I can't find the exact law that states it, that the President has the right to ban any non citizens who he or she deems to be a threat to the American people. And while it's never happened at this scale, Presidents have banned non citizens before. The only thing I'll disagree with you on is that Trump is following Obama's guidelines: if anything, he's following Carter's guidelines. The thing that disturbed me about this ban was never the legality, I figured that likely wouldn't be a problem. As for the difference between Christian and Muslim refugees, I'll say you're right that America has taken in a very disproportionate number of Muslims, but keep a few things in mind. For starters, the countries that America has been allowing in refugees from are Muslim majority, so it does make sense that the majority of people needing assistance are Muslim due to sheer numbers. Also, despite what Trump and the right has said, the vast majority of victims of radical Islam are fellow Muslims. A Shiite Muslim is in arguably more danger from ISIS than a Christian is. The Shitte-Sunni conflict is a large portion of why ISIS exists in the first place. Likewise, a Sunni Muslim is in grave danger from a group such as Hezbollah. I'm not saying at all that Christians are no danger in the Middle East, of course they are. I'm only stating the facts that a Muslim is far more likely to be killed by an Islamist than a Christian is. That said, I agree America can take in far more Christian refugees than they currently are. Still, I don't like Trump's idea on showing Christians preferential treatment. In doing that, you're saying to Muslims "Yeah I recognize you're in grave danger over here, but I'm too scared to help you. Have fun not dying over here." It's wrong to acknowledge the danger but only help certain people. I understand the security risk in bringing over some Muslims from that part of that world, don't get me wrong. But to only help certain people is also wrong, since you know the people you're not helping are likely to die. It's basic humanity. It's a very, very complex issue, and I fear there are no real victories to be had in the Middle East. I think things are too screwed up.
     
  7. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    Not much to add, just wanted to say I overall agree with much of what you said (especially on the "it's a complex issue" sentiment). I just find it interesting that myself and Trump supporters see that reality and say "I'm fine with that - carry on, Mr. President...for now", while others (including people here in this thread) find it repugnant and vile, or at least the start of a slippery slope.
     
  8. Dreyfus

    Dreyfus Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    10
    • Agree Agree x 1
    #108 Dreyfus, Jan 31, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  9. Spideyzilla

    Spideyzilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    259
    I absolutely find this ban vile, and I absolutely believe it is the start of a slippery slope. I would like to amend a previous statement of mine that I made that I have since found was incorrect. I compared Trump's actions to Jimmy Carter's, and they are not. Carter's Iranian "ban" was in direct retaliation to Iran taking the American diplomats hostage. It wasn't a ban based on a religion, it was an action taken against a nation that had shown incredible hostility. The more research I do on past "bans," the more I realize just how unprecedented Trump's actions are. Even Obama's actions towards Iraq in 2011 are not similar, there were still some Iraqis coming into the country then. Take heed though, wonderfly. You're not the only one. This poll finds that 49% of Americans support the ban, 41% oppose it and 10% are undecided. When you add the undecideds, almost 60% of Americans are not against this measure, despite the widespread opposition we've seen. So the people protesting at airports represent the minority in the country. This is why I don't discount the possibility of the GOP winning a super majority in 2018. Yes, these decisions may be appalling to people in New York and LA, the fact is that these populist actions play very well in areas in red, purple and some moderate blue states. If he brings significant well paying jobs in, Trump would likely be unstoppable. A populist president is often a popular president. However, I think we can agree that this debunks your idea that the polls are faked by the media to make Trump seem unpopular. If the media was willing to put out fake polls to make it seem like Trump is deeply unpopular, why wouldn't they put out fake polls to try to make it seem like his most controversial policy isn't also unpopular? As I said before, the problem wasn't the polls during the election, it was the fact people in the media forgot how to read polls. Really, anyone paying attention to polls could have seen what was going to happen.

    This drove me nuts. Kellyanne Conway is tricky, I'll give her that. However, she made up a fake massacre to justify the ban. The "Bowling Green Massacre," never happened. It just didn't, there are no accounts of any attack from any Muslim extremist in Bowling Green. Indefensible, she is straight up lying. I'm very curious to see how Trump supporters defend this one.
     
  10. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    ....yes, which is exactly how we (the supporters) view the current ban.

    "Straight up lying"? It's hard to make up a fake massacre in this day and age. She either misspoke or she botched her info in prepping for that interview. Maybe she meant to say "which could have lead to a massacre". Maybe she was thinking of the somewhat nearby 2015 Chattanooga TN shootings. (shrug)

    EDIT: She's walking it back, saying she meant to say "Bowling Green terrorists", not "Bowling Green Massacre". So get over it, media (I see too many news outlets shaking their finger at her, basically saying "Aha! We got you! Finally, proof that the Trump administration is trying to deceive America!!").

    Moving on:

    Behold, the "tolerance" of leftists on full display:



    Because riots and assaulting people = freedom!
     
    #110 wonderfly, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  11. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
    Yeah, way to portray anarchists as the liberal left. You got us there @wonderfly! Ace detective work. Maybe little Donnie will give you a position with his press secretary for that one.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. ToonJay723

    ToonJay723 Bingo Bongo

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    295
    They'll claim that she was just stating "alternative facts"

    Anarchists do not what freedom they want chaos. Where did you get that idea. The only people calling for freedom are liberals, moderates, and conservatives who can see that Trump is too far right.
     
  13. EinBebop

    EinBebop Data Dog

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    14,399
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't believe in using the idiots on the conservative side to try to demonize all conservatives, because I respect their views even if I don't agree with all of them. And when conservatives disrespect me in that way...

    I wish you all a good day.
     
  14. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
    And just so he can't blame Obama or the left for this one, a Donnie-authorized mission in Yemen killed 30 civilians, including an 8 year-old girl who was a US citizen. Also killed was a top Navy SEAL. Oh and a $70 million aircraft was destroyed too. I wonder if the thin-skinned baby will tweet about that.

    This is what happens when you give a petty, mentally diminished individual access to weaponry. Speaking of that, the GOP-led House overturned a law blocking the mentally unstable from owning guns. Cause you know, letting unstable people have guns is a great safety precaution for all.

    Also from that article, laws stopping coal mining operations from polluting waterways has been dropped, so expect some great water treated with coal and various chemicals in your taps soon if you live near a mine!
     
  15. Spideyzilla

    Spideyzilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    259
    My comment here applies to both of your statements here, both in regard to the ban and the "massacre." Here's the deal: language matters. Rhetoric and specifics matter. People are not going to "get over" the Trump administration's penchant for broad, sweeping rhetoric, nor should they. Language and specifics are incredibly important. If Trump had proposed the ban of these seven countries (And no, the countries he proposed are largely NOT hostile to America, so throw that comparison to Carter out), that would have been one thing. But he didn't, he said it was all non American Muslims. Many people saw it as inherently racist (myself included), and rejected it. We now see his current ban as a thinly veiled version of that policy. Why? Because language matters, and Trump's original statement matters. Save your comments on "he speaks in broad strokes." A President should know better than that. Likewise, I don't believe for a second Conway misspoke. She's too well spoken and slippery to so callously do that, especially in that situation. I view it as being another dog whistle from the Trump administration, something to continue their fear mongering. But I can't read her mind, and neither can you, so we'll never know.
    Moving on:
    Sigh.... You want to go there? You sure? Okay. Those people ARE NOT LIBERALS. They are anarchists, they are far left nutcases. Every liberal publication you will see has disavowed these people, as they should. These idiots give liberals a bad name, and they give the right ammunition to criticize them. By the way, you forgot to mention the time a Milo fan and Trump supporter shot and nearly killed a protestor? I just thought I'd remind you. It's funny, Breitbart seemed to neglect mentioning this little episode. Should I start ranting about the intolerant right? No, because that guy doesn't speak for all conservatives. Don't apply that standard to liberals, it's unfair. By the way, want proof the Trump administration has lied to people? Here you go. Sean Spicer was talking about how Iranian forces had attacked a US warship, it's one of the reasons Iran is "on notice." Here's his quote:
    Remember when I said "language matters?" Here you go, because all this did was stir tensions with Iran. This word came from the press secretary, the administration's mouthpiece. The problem? He lied. The warship wasn't American, it was Saudi Arabian, and the attackers were Houthi rebels. America had nothing to do with this. And yet, those fires with Iran are being stoked, and the Trump administration is showing them more and more unnecessary hostility. You understand this is bad, right? There is no "oh they meant this" or "oh it's just rhetoric." This was a lie, and it was a lie meant to provoke Iran. You know what they say about poking a bear? Well, Iran is a 400 pound grizzly, and the Trump administration is hitting it with a stick for no reason.

    One more comment. People have brought up the botched Yemen raid, and I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I read this Reuters article and I found this interesting:
    Is Trump losing favour with the military? These officials seemed to have no problem throwing him to the wolves, so it's a possibility. As mentioned in various articles, Obama had considered this raid, but had not approved it. It also seems as if the Obama administration was not 100% sold on the raid, and hope Trump would look into it more. The thing that disturbs me most if that one of the victims was an Nawar al-Awalki, the eight year old daughter of 9/11 plotter Anwar al-Awalki. The 2011 murder by drone of Anwar al-Awalki was the most heinous thing the Obama administration ever did, and one of the worst things the US government ever did. It's simply indefensible. I don't care how evil al-Awalki was, he was an American citizen who was entitled to a fair trial. Now, his eight year old daughter is dead. A horrible thought came into my head: Trump has said repeatedly said he wanted to target terrorist families. Is it possible Nawar's death wasn't an accident? I just find it way too big of a coincidence to believe she just happened to be there. One way or another, Donald Trump now has the blood of an eight year old girl on his hands. It's things like that which make me wonder why anyone would ever want to be President. So that's my incredibly long winded post of the day.
     
    #115 Spideyzilla, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  16. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    A good article, though the writer does throw in a "P.S." addendum there at the end:

    And the writer admits in one section there's too many anarchists in their "neck of the woods", which to me is the more troubling aspect - the whole leftist culture of California promotes the rise of these anarchists.

    EDIT:
    The point is, they shouldn't be protesting period - because they can't control the crowd and disperse when needed, and because FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAYS LEAVE THE SPEAKER (AND THE REPUBLICANS WHO INVITED HIM) ALONE.

    Yes, Trump authorized the mission, but it was in the planning stages for months under the Obama Administration. From this article:

    So if certain "conditions on the ground" had occurred, the raid could've occurred weeks sooner, under Obama's watch. Trump's signature was an Executive Branch formality. But yeah, the raid didn't quite go as planned. They still collected a lot of important intel, but the loss of life was high.
     
    #116 wonderfly, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  17. Red Arrow :D

    Red Arrow :D Proud Beneluxer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    11,222
    Likes Received:
    785
    Unnecessary hostility. Those are the words we're looking for. Suddenly every country is seen as the enemy, except Russia of course. Russia's currently invading Ukraine again, but who cares.
     
  18. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
    Didn't you hear? We're friends with them now. "Strong", white leader. White majority population with nary a black, I mean African-American in sight. Free to abuse spouses (but really it's women) with no legal ramifications. It's a Donnie paradise.
     
  19. Spideyzilla

    Spideyzilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    259
    Well, I could argue that the culture of guns and "stand your ground" promotes the rise of right wing terrorism. The attack on a Quebec City mosque by a right wing terrorist earlier this week is a perfect illustration of that. The point is, there's violent idiots on both sides.

    Umm... what? So freedom of speech applies to Milo and the people who invited him, but not protestors? What? Free speech doesn't mean you have to leave a speaker alone, it only means you let them speak. And no, the protestors didn't let Milo speak, but what do you mean they shouldn't be protesting at all? Protesting is the most American thing you can do.
     
  20. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    The guy who did the shooting claimed it was self defense. He turned himself into the police. Here's the video of the shooting. (not that you can make out too much). This article says the shooter has been let go from police custody without being charged (for now), and the cops are still conducting their investigation, and are being tight lipped about the whole thing. This article mentions the person who was shot is a known member of something called the "'Industrial Workers of the World', which is connected to the socialist and anarchist movements."

    But do I think both sides could stand to calm down? Yes.

    No, going about your daily lives, going to class and learning how to be a productive member of society, going on from there to work, and raising your family, salute and thank veteran passing by on the street, attend a baseball game, visiting your mom and telling her how wonderful her fried chicken and apple pie are, THAT is the most American thing you can do.

    ....yes, I went a little grandiose there. Protesters rile me up. But I truly was shocked (and then angry) when I saw that video from ABC News yesterday morning.
     
    #120 wonderfly, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017

Share This Page

  • Find Toonzone on Facebook

  • Toonzone News

  • Site Updates

    Upcoming Premieres

  • Toonzone Fan Sites


Tac Anti Spam from Surrey Forum