'Make America Great Again' marches planned

[Michelle]

On 3/27/2017 at 10:23 AM, aquatus1 said:

Nah, it's only obfuscation if one does it assuming the people reading it aren't smart enough to understand.  Using big words isn't a dismissal or avoidance tactic.  It's just...well, a higher level of discussion.  It shows respect, and requests a similar level of thought and intellect from the other people in the discussion.

As does the Right.  Or are you denying there are people in the Right that do this? 

 

I tend to side with George Orwell.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

Besides, I spend a lot of time with people whose first language isn't English if they speak English at all. It shows much more respect not to talk down to them. It makes them feel much more included and accepted to speak clearly and plainly so they can learn.

I keep the same approach here, because I'm acutely aware this is an international site.

[Paranormal Panther]

19 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

So.'Fake Accusations' are the real problem?

You are needlessly argumentative. It's a problem. It's not the only problem or "the real problem". Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Likely Guy]

5 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

You are needlessly argumentative. It's a problem. It's not the only problem or "the real problem". Please don't put words in my mouth.

And you are needlessly accusatory.

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:00 AM, Farmer77 said:

'Make America Great Again' marches planned Saturday; anti-Trump groups vow to stop them 

 On Saturday, backers of President Trump are planning marches across the country in a show of unity and support for his agenda. In several places, anti-Trump groups are vowing to try to undermine the rallies. 

The marches, dubbed “Make America Great Again,” or "MAGA,” have met with opposition in some areas, with anti-Trump groups planning to counter-demonstrate.

Hilarious that they are using' MAGA' which for many stands for "Millionaire ******* Golfing Again"......anyways this should be fun to watch. 

 

Seeing as Judges, the media, and rival politicians are trying every dirty trick in the book to stop Trump delivering Democracy this is a clever move by him.

He needs to mobilize the people to openly display their support of him to force his opponents to back down. A judge does not dictate policy. The people do through what they vote for.

Edited March 28, 2017 by RabidMongoose

[Paranormal Panther]

18 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I agree, it was a weak analogy.  Good history lesson though, thanks. I was thinking how downtrodden and beaten many Germans must have felt after WWI, a defeat and reparations, massive inflation in their case too.  In America, nothing was as bad as that, but to see so many middle class jobs evaporate and the families they supported now in distress.  

On the bright side, the Pres. just said something about education and job training as important issues.  I hope there is a good sum of money in the budget for that one.  I saw a story today about a man who has a 3-D printing factory with hundreds of 3-D printers and 17 employees.  He said high schools and colleges don't provide the training he is looking for in employees; so he hires smart reliable people and trains them himself.  OJT.

I'll stress when I buy groceries with a wheelbarrow of cash. We're not like Greece or Venezuela, but we're not in great shape, either. I'm not optimistic. I'll remain neutral, not pessimistic, until things improve. I gave Bush and Obama a chance, so I'll give Trump a chance. The trend is that we dig the hole deeper each year rather than getting out of it, and it's been that way since 9/11. It's like the deep state will accept nothing more than a dystopian reality in which an increasingly large number of the working poor pay taxes to support endless, needless wars that kill thousands of foreign people whose loved ones join terroristic groups because they "hate us for our freedom". We don't live under Hitler, but it seems like we are headed into our own unique abyss because politicians likely don't even want things to improve (judging by their actions instead of their words).

[Paranormal Panther]

16 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

And you are needlessly accusatory.

I based my reply on your comment. No accusations were necessary.

[Michelle]

19 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

So.'Fake Accusations' are the real problem?

Yes, they are. They take up police time that could be better spent on real crimes. The accusations have been proven to be false by security cameras and personal videos. Not to mention generalizations, slander of race and accusations of bigotry.

[Paranormal Panther]

17 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

That is EXACTLY what I am saying here.

I know you are putting a lot of effort into your narrative here, and it all looks good.... however, the unlikely is exactly what is happening here. That is why the phony nonsense about "micro-aggressions" was invented, because the real stuff just wasn't out there. And when you are talking about a ratio that falls into the single-diguits it is truly insignificant.

And I know that it would seem to be incredible, especially to those who view Right Wingers as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, but they won. They have no reason to go berserk the way the Left is... and they also know that the Media is entirely slanted against them and would crush them and everyone associated with them if they step even slightly out of line.

Post what you have, and I will dig in and have a look at the individual episodes. That is what I want, specific incidents that I can track down. The longest list of de-bunks covered 15 separate items in one shot, but here is a quickie;

 

 

 

There's absolutely no comparison between leftist political mayhem and rightist political mayhem. Cognitive gymnastics won't change that fact. Just think if rightists went berserk at Berkeley and did the exact same things that the leftists did. The media probably would still be covering it. Rampaging and rioting Trump supporters would be called dangerous and destructive domestic terrorists. Robert Reich would *not* claim that they really were leftists in disguise. *All* Trump fans would be suspect. People would laugh (in the reverse scenario) at the anomalous act of alleged leftist violence, which would include anti-conservative "hate speech" as well as hate-crime hoaxes perpetrated by Republican college students.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Seeing as Judges, the media, and rival politicians are trying every dirty trick in the book to stop Trump delivering Democracy this is a clever move by him.

He needs to mobilize the people to openly display their support of him to force his opponents to back down. A judge does not dictate policy. The people do through what they vote for.

Outta curiosity, why would an democraticly elected official need to mobilise the people to change or ignore the law? Trump should respect the law. Cause others are using it against him is no reason for Trump to spit the dummy. 

[Michelle]

On 3/26/2017 at 10:05 AM, aquatus1 said:

Can't be helped.  I'm a thinker.  I try to avoid reacting to things as they come.  I would rather look back through history and see what the likely outcomes are based on the past behavior of the human animal.  We are frightfully predictable creatures, like most others.

 

Maybe it's time to get out of your own head.

[AnchorSteam]

On 3/28/2017 at 5:33 PM, Captain Risky said:

Outta curiosity, why would an democraticly elected official need to mobilise the people to change or ignore the law? Trump should respect the law. Cause others are using it against him is no reason for Trump to spit the dummy. 

It is the Judges that are ignoring the law, and that is a literal fact. They are illegally blocking his ruling on immigration based on their own perception of what something he said in a campaign speech! Not the meaning of anything he has ever done or proposed, but their own feeling about something he mouthed-off about ages ago.

Meanwhile, these same Judges will be backing the verifiably illegal support for Sanctuary Cities, which have been illegal since 1996. 

So, time to march, right?

 

There is something even more evil and disturbing that the Political Elite has been backing; the death of the 1st Amendment. 

Are we being blindfolded by Trump issues while much more important things have been going on?

 

(at 9;12pm PST on Wednesday, 9 out of the top ten threads here have Trump's name on them) 

Edited March 30, 2017 by AnchorSteam

[Unusual Tournament]

11 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

It is the Judges that are ignoring the law, and that is a literal fact. They are illegally blocking his ruling on immigration based on their own perception of what something he said in a campaign speech! Not the meaning of anything he has ever done or proposed, but their own feeling about something he mouthed-off about ages ago.

Meanwhile, these same Judges will be backing the verifiably illegal support for Sanctuary Cities, which have been illegal since 1996. 

So, time to march, right?

 

There is something even more evil and disturbing that the Political Elite has been backing; the death of the 1st Amendment. 

Are we being blindfolded by Trump issues while much more important things have been going on?

 

(at 9;12pm PST on Wednesday, 9 out of the top ten threads here have Trump's name on them) 

Im no lawyer mate but my take on the law is that interpretation is the devil. The law needs to be basic and modular to be effective. The judges have a different take on what the presidents legal people are telling him. It might very well be that Trump has over extended himself on this or that the judges have. Hard to say. 

[Likely Guy]

Screw you, "M.A.G.A.", make America whole again.

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said:

It is the Judges that are ignoring the law, and that is a literal fact. They are illegally blocking his ruling on immigration based on their own perception of what something he said in a campaign speech! Not the meaning of anything he has ever done or proposed, but their own feeling about something he mouthed-off about ages ago.

Meanwhile, these same Judges will be backing the verifiably illegal support for Sanctuary Cities, which have been illegal since 1996. 

So, time to march, right?

 

There is something even more evil and disturbing that the Political Elite has been backing; the death of the 1st Amendment. 

Are we being blindfolded by Trump issues while much more important things have been going on?

 

(at 9;12pm PST on Wednesday, 9 out of the top ten threads here have Trump's name on them) 

I disagree with you wholeheartedly about the judges and the ban. Trump said and trump's surrogates said they wanted a muslim ban. What you're asking the court to do is ignore the evidence at hand. Im not sure how you can do that. 

To the bolded, well absolutely we're missing things while we're distracted by the big orange mess in Washington. Thats how they work, whenever there is a big story always look to see what the other hand is doing. 

Edited March 30, 2017 by Farmer77

[Frank Merton]

The judges, apparently disagreeing with you, believe in the First Amendment and can see through religious discrimination.

[AnchorSteam]

16 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

The judges, apparently disagreeing with you, believe in the First Amendment and can see through religious discrimination.

 

Again, as I have stated before, the POTUS has the power to suspend immigration of any group or class of people into the United States that he deems necessary. And there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about immigration or open borders. 

The US had prevented immigration of specific groups during different periods and had suspended general immigration in the past. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to stop Chinese laborers from entrance, and the Immigration Act of 1924 that restricted Africans and the outright ban of all Asians and Arabs. I believe there was one against a European group also, I can't find it so not 100% sure.

Even now, certain groups are favored. If you are Cuban and can make it to dry sand on US territory, you become legal - no one else seem to have that privilege. 

In Khan's speech, his references to the Constitution were "liberty" and "equal protection" - which has nothing to do with potential immigrants. 

1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act:

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)

(f) 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.

For those that argue it is Unconstitutional:

The United States Supreme Court wrote in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950):

At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. …

Thus the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.
...

[Farmer77]

17 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

 

Again, as I have stated before, the POTUS has the power to suspend immigration of any group or class of people into the United States that he deems necessary. And there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about immigration or open borders. 

The US had prevented immigration of specific groups during different periods and had suspended general immigration in the past. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to stop Chinese laborers from entrance, and the Immigration Act of 1924 that restricted Africans and the outright ban of all Asians and Arabs. I believe there was one against a European group also, I can't find it so not 100% sure.

Even now, certain groups are favored. If you are Cuban and can make it to dry sand on US territory, you become legal - no one else seem to have that privilege. 

In Khan's speech, his references to the Constitution were "liberty" and "equal protection" - which has nothing to do with potential immigrants. 

1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act:

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)

(f) 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.

For those that argue it is Unconstitutional:

The United States Supreme Court wrote in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950):

At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. …

Thus the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.
...

Dude we also used to practice eugenics and slavery. I wouldnt be so quick to point to past eras as justifications for todays actions. 

This is precedent for what the courts are doing now:

In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, for example, the Supreme Court found that even if a policy does not overtly discriminate between two classes of people, a discriminatory motive can taint it.  Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

I dont think you can legitimately make an argument that his motives arent discriminatory against muslims. 

 

Similarly, recent case law suggests that, under the new Equal Protection doctrine, a law banning people of a certain religion from the United States would not hold up. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), Justice Kennedy explicitly drew a connection between the Constitution’s protections of religious liberty and the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee against invidious discrimination. The court struck down an animal welfare ordinance outlawing ritual sacrifice that might have appeared neutral on its face—it studiously avoided any mention of a particular religion—because the ordinance in its intent targeted the local Santeria religion, the only group in the region that practiced animal sacrifice, thus suppressing their religious freedom. Justice Kennedy based his conclusion that this “religious gerrymander” intentionally singled out an unpopular group based on the context of its enactment, including statements made by officials at the time. Trump’s seemingly neutral order also strains to avoid mentioning religion—but all the lawyerly scrubbing in the world will not remove its taint of religious discrimination.

[AnchorSteam]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Dude we also used to practice eugenics and slavery. I wouldnt be so quick to point to past eras as justifications for todays actions. 

 

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Are you arguing to ignore certain laws because they conflict with your ideas of morality and current opinion trends?

That is ANARCHY. 

 

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

I dont think you can legitimately make an argument that his motives arent discriminatory against muslims. 

 

I can; they are directed at 6 nations that are known as failed states where background checks are not verifiable and the whole process is badly flawed. 

Period.

You can conflate that to anti-muslim predjudice if you like, but it does not change the fact that muslms are mentioned by YOU and not by the Order.

 

 

I suggest that all of these Judges can and should be held personally and financially liable for all damages done by any Terrorists that slip through because of their actions. Since they are gtaking the law into their own hands, they are responsible for what fallows, not any other branch of the Government.

 

And that bit where the law was used to allow Animal sacrifice isn't going to make this whole thing look any better for your side.

Just sayin'.

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

 

You can conflate that to anti-muslim predjudice if you like, but it does not change the fact that muslms are mentioned by YOU and not by the Order.

and i posted the case law that says intent matters, regardless of whether the law is "gerrymandered" to carefully avoid such verbiage. Scream about anarchy all you want , it seems you are the one ignoring the law. 

[Yamato]

On 3/24/2017 at 10:32 PM, Likely Guy said:

What would happen if there was a "Reasonable People March"?

How many people would honesty show up?

[AnchorSteam]

On 3/30/2017 at 4:39 PM, Farmer77 said:

and i posted the case law that says intent matters, regardless of whether the law is "gerrymandered" to carefully avoid such verbiage. Scream about anarchy all you want , it seems you are the one ignoring the law. 

The fact of the matter is that I quoted case law up above, and you linked to other people's opinions about laws and justification for blowing it all off.

Just like Sanctuary Cities.

But hey, lets persecute all the Whistle Blowers to the fullest extent of the "law", right Herr Oberst ?

Tweaking the law to suit the law-breakers and the Powers That Be is Banana Republic stuff, and I don't mean the stupid little boutique store. 

[Farmer77]

13 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

The fact of the matter is that I quoted case law up above, and you linked to other people's opinions about laws and justification for blowing it all off.

Just like Sanctuary Cities.

But hey, lets persecute all the Whistle Blowers to the fullest extent of the "law", right Herr Oberst ?

Tweaking the law to suit the law-breakers and the Powers That Be is Banana Republic stuff, and I don't mean the stupid little boutique store. 

Isnt that how law works though, based on precedence?

Ironically your last sentence is exactly how I feel about trumps proposed ban, thankfully the checks and balances put in place to keep the whole banana republic thing from happening are working. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Farmer77

[Yamato]

On 3/30/2017 at 0:25 AM, Captain Risky said:

Im no lawyer mate but my take on the law is that interpretation is the devil. The law needs to be basic and modular to be effective. The judges have a different take on what the presidents legal people are telling him. It might very well be that Trump has over extended himself on this or that the judges have. Hard to say. 

Black and white laws written by the intolerant are better than plumbing the greys?   If interpretation is the devil, what evils are we suffering from today as a result of interpretation?    If the courts don't do it, the bureaucrats and corporations will.  And we have way too much of the latter already. 

People make different claims all the time what kind of rule of law we have.   "Oligarchy" hits close to the target but "Corporatocracy" hits the bullseye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Courts are a very important balance of power.  "Activist judges" are often bemoaned in certain political circles because laws can really spoil their fun.  

A city judge rules on who can use a bathroom and that becomes a national issue.   Anything to complain about nothing so the crooks keep getting fatter and fatter.   I'm still trying to figure out how to get some interpretation from the high courts about the plainest authority in the Constitution we've got, like the power to declare war.  So basic, they have to ignore it not to understand it.  But it's harder to get fatter if they do their jobs.

The big hearing is May 15.  Just what exactly the Trump administration is busy figuring out while the country remains so vulnerable to "radical Islamic terrorism" remains to be seen.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-9th-circuit-has-set-date-for-travel-ban-1491344609-htmlstory.html

 

[Unusual Tournament]

4 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Black and white laws written by the intolerant are better than plumbing the greys?   If interpretation is the devil, what evils are we suffering from today as a result of interpretation?    If the courts don't do it, the bureaucrats and corporations will.  And we have way too much of the latter already. 

People make different claims all the time what kind of rule of law we have.   "Oligarchy" hits close to the target but "Corporatocracy" hits the bullseye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Courts are a very important balance of power.  "Activist judges" are often bemoaned in certain political circles because laws can really spoil their fun.  

A city judge rules on who can use a bathroom and that becomes a national issue.   Anything to complain about nothing so the crooks keep getting fatter and fatter.   I'm still trying to figure out how to get some interpretation from the high courts about the plainest authority in the Constitution we've got, like the power to declare war.  So basic, they have to ignore it not to understand it.  But it's harder to get fatter if they do their jobs.

The big hearing is May 15.  Just what exactly the Trump administration is busy figuring out while the country remains so vulnerable to "radical Islamic terrorism" remains to be seen.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-9th-circuit-has-set-date-for-travel-ban-1491344609-htmlstory.html

 

This is a subject that really doesn't do much for me. So bare with me. But i will say that the justice a rich man gets for his day in court is different than that of a poor man. To make laws equal and fair they must be black and white, modular and clear, IMO. having tomes and tomes of laws that only lawyers can make sense of only suits lawyers and those that can pay for a different interpretation to effect the outcome they desire at astronomical costs an hour. And when they don't get what they want they use it to lessen the sentence and severity of their actions. What is wrong with saying guilty or innocent? Right or wrong. I know its simplistic but this business of the rich and corporations not happy with a verdict unless they can walk away with something is mad when the law has to care for their sensitivities. I mean how is a common man supposed to get restitution if he can't afford to fight another interpretation of the law or show that a precedent in another case shouldn't or should apply for him/her?

The judges and their actions you speak of are few and far between. A mere bandaid on a legal haemorrhaging wound. Don't get me wrong very welcomed but generally just not enough.    

[Yamato]

On 3/30/2017 at 1:40 AM, Farmer77 said:

I disagree with you wholeheartedly about the judges and the ban. Trump said and trump's surrogates said they wanted a muslim ban. What you're asking the court to do is ignore the evidence at hand. Im not sure how you can do that.

Trump means what he says, Trump doesn't mean what he says. 

 

6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

This is a subject that really doesn't do much for me. So bare with me. But i will say that the justice a rich man gets for his day in court is different than that of a poor man. To make laws equal and fair they must be black and white, modular and clear, IMO. having tomes and tomes of laws that only lawyers can make sense of only suits lawyers and those that can pay for a different interpretation to effect the outcome they desire at astronomical costs an hour. And when they don't get what they want they use it to lessen the sentence and severity of their actions. What is wrong with saying guilty or innocent? Right or wrong. I know its simplistic but this business of the rich and corporations not happy with a verdict unless they can walk away with something is mad when the law has to care for their sensitivities. I mean how is a common man supposed to get restitution if he can't afford to fight another interpretation of the law or show that a precedent in another case shouldn't or should apply for him/her?

The judges and their actions you speak of are few and far between. A mere bandaid on a legal haemorrhaging wound. Don't get me wrong very welcomed but generally just not enough.    

I can go for that for the most part.   I have a caveat with the universal right and wrong or black and white though.  I think you should be allowed to do what someone else thinks is wrong so long as you don't harm anyone.  And what might be right for you might not be right for some.  Building a playground in your front yard ruins the neighbors' property value and infinite other examples.   As time goes by the grey areas will stream in and thank heavens we have an authorized means to interpret it all out. 

Yeah a rich man's justice isn't the same in court but it's just as true out of court so the courts aren't especially guilty.  I can go for plain black and white provided there's a lot less laws making a lot more things "wrong".   If lawmakers and judges started with a good foundation like "Legalize Freedom", gosh that would mean govt would pay its bills the way real people do.  You know, total fantasy.