Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Exactly. System of checks and balances. The Excecutive branch executes (carries out) the law, the Legislative branch legislates (writes) the law, and the Judicial branch judges (interprets) the law. Time and time again the three branches of the Federal government work to keep each other in check and prevent any one branch from overreaching their authority.
I know how the shit works stardust. You just explained 4th grade level social studies. Congrats
This EO isnt unconstitutional.
The point was we have another judge rule it constitutional. So one of the doesnt matter but the other does? The judge created a clusterfuck
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Read the whole post. Read the first and second line. The point was why do 2 judges rulings conflict? and one is treated as law and the other ignored.
This other judge doesnt matter if he was appointed 99-0. Appears like he is an activist. Its funny , I dont like george fucking bush yet anyone tries to make some point to me (libertarian by the way), its always well george bush appointed him!!! Like I give 2 fucks? Then I try the same tactic back in their face that obama did the same shit saying how dare the supreme court rule on something like they did to their face, yet people dismiss it, ah not the same thing. Its the exact same fucking thing man.
Im only defending trump in here because you get a bunch of fake news leftist hysteria and its so over the top absurd and lies that it makes people even in the center have to step back and defend trump. The left is re electing trump as we speak. You can only shout hitler, homophobe, racist, on every single thing he does for so long before people roll their eyes and tune you the fuck out.
The fact is this judge didnt use any part of the law to defend his decision. Just blanket derp constitution. Ive listened to many discussions on this. It is completely constitutional.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
No way of justifying it, other than maybe she might give in after the school year. But Sasha Obama has some explaining to do too. She gets secret service detail until she turns 16 next year. Also, the currently living past presidents and their wives get eternal secret sevice detail as well, well at least until they pass away anyway.
trump said a loooong time ago if he won that melania would stay in new york till barron was done with the school year. This was already a known thing.
I made jokes then that the white house is a downgrade lol.
Exactly. System of checks and balances. The Excecutive branch executes (carries out) the law, the Legislative branch legislates (writes) the law, and the Judicial branch judges (interprets) the law. Time and time again the three branches of the Federal government work to keep each other in check and prevent any one branch from overreaching their authority.
Oh checks and balances goes much further than that! The two party system is one also. Even in countries with mutliple parties there is usually one main left-of-center and one main right-of-center party (like our D's and R's) and in countries with a parliment where you must have a majority (over half the seats, not just the most seats), one of those two main parties may need to form a coaliation with one or more minor "helper" parties so to speak. In any event, when one party is in power too long and gets too comfortable/complacient, then the voters tend to want to "change course" to the other side. For example, in 1933-69, the D's had the White House seven out of nine terms, but 1969-2009 the R's had the White House seven out of ten terms. Also, since 1953 only once has the same party held the White House for more than two terms in a row (1981-93).
Another check and balance is government regulation versus free enterprise. When there is too much unregulated capitalism, you have government regulations to help keep it in check. Conversely, when goverment regulation/big government goes too far, we made need to loosen the reins on capitalism. Once again, it's a balancing act.
Even the Electoral College is checks and balances in a way. Without it, the candidates would only bother going to the biggest cities and other population centers, and nobody would care about rural areas or smaller populated states. With the Electoral College, sure the states with the most people get the most electoral votes, but at least the less populated/more rural states count also, and of course it's quite possible just one or two of those smaller states in a close enough election could determine the outcome! Sure it was 29 Electoral Vote Florida that decided the 2000 election, but it could've just as easily been teeny little 4 EV's New Hampshire! No joke!
So as you can see, there many other checks and balances that are just as if not more important than the three branches of gov't we were all taught in elementary school.
I know how the shit works stardust. You just explained 4th grade level social studies. Congrats
This EO isnt unconstitutional.
The point was we have another judge rule it constitutional. So one of the doesnt matter but the other does? The judge created a clusterfuck
The "clusterfuck" is Trump not doing diligent fact checking to see if his shit is kosher before filing these ludicrus Executive Orders.
And being stubborn as a mule. "It's my way or the Highway; screw what my advisors think; screw the will of the people; screw what any other world leaders think of us. You guys elected me to do the job, I'm gonna do it my way, and if you don't like it, you can shove it strait to Hades because I'm the fucking president..."
I know how the shit works stardust. You just explained 4th grade level social studies. Congrats
This EO isnt unconstitutional.
The point was we have another judge rule it constitutional. So one of the doesnt matter but the other does? The judge created a clusterfuck
The "clusterfuck" is Trump not doing diligent fact checking to see if his shit is kosher before filing these ludicrus Executive Orders.
And being stubborn as a mule. "It's my way or the Highway; screw what my advisors think; screw the will of the people; screw what any other world leaders think of us. You guys elected me to do the job, I'm gonna do it my way, and if you don't like it, you can shove it strait to Hades because I'm the fucking president..."
Well Ive said repeatedly the execution rollout of it was sloppy. So I dont know what else to say. The problem was clarification of current green card holders. Well that was tweaked and fixed. That was cleared up and we were moving on. Then this judge pauses the whole thing and clusterfucks it again.
And your being a little dramatic stardust. cmon. Your getting all worked up again with the emojis. Take a break from politics.
Ludicrous executive orders? yup all of them are ludicrous....smh. Cmon man where were you when obama said he was going to do everything he could with a pen and a phone to bypass congress doing all types of questionable actions. You didnt seem to get worked up back then. Just calm down. Everything will be fine. You seem to rant on emotions in here and not on facts or looking things up yourself.
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Read the whole post. Read the first and second line. The point was why do 2 judges rulings conflict? and one is treated as law and the other ignored.
This other judge doesnt matter if he was appointed 99-0. Appears like he is an activist. Its funny , I dont like george fucking bush yet anyone tries to make some point to me (libertarian by the way), its always well george bush appointed him!!! Like I give 2 fucks? Then I try the same tactic back in their face that obama did the same shit saying how dare the supreme court rule on something like they did to their face, yet people dismiss it, ah not the same thing. Its the exact same fucking thing man.
Im only defending trump in here because you get a bunch of fake news leftist hysteria and its so over the top absurd and lies that it makes people even in the center have to step back and defend trump. The left is re electing trump as we speak. You can only shout hitler, homophobe, racist, on every single thing he does for so long before people roll their eyes and tune you the fuck out.
The fact is this judge didnt use any part of the law to defend his decision. Just blanket derp constitution. Ive listened to many discussions on this. It is completely constitutional.
No offense, but you probably shouldn't be speaking down to other people about their ignorance of the justice system when you clearly do not understand the process that is playing out (no shame in that, btw, this shit is confusing). The judge issued a TRO, which only stays the action (in this case, the EO) while the case plays out. There is no requirement for legal reasoning at this time, that will come later when he makes an actual decision on the merits.
As for your apparent surprise that two judges could possibly have different rulings...I mean, is this seriously news to you? That's how the system works, just take a look at the Supreme Court itself! It is very rare we have unanimous decisions on the nation's highest court, because the laws and Constitution are often open to interpretation and people have differing opinions. That is one of the major reasons why courts exist in the first place. It's far from a surprise that two judges in different jurisdictions could come to different conclusions, that's just how things work. Sooner, rather than later, this case will make it in front of the Supreme Court and then we'll have the binding decision...unless it's 4-4 and we have legal chaos (you can thank Republicans for letting a Court vacancy sit for like a year).
Regarding the "fake news" rant, I hardly see how that is pertinent in any way here. I'd also cite to some data on how centrists and Independents (which I am registered, btw) currently view Trump, but I'm sure I'd get the "fake news" meme, so why bother?
Finally, with regards to the "Obama said he disagreed with a Supreme Court decision, which apparently is the same thing as tweeting a handful of times about how a "so-called judge" is going to get us killed, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Obama never questioned the role of the judiciary branch, he simply disagreed with some of their rulings. There is a distinct difference, probably borne from the fact that Obama wasn't a fascist at heart who told America that "only he could save it."
Not really that interesting, that guy is full of shit. He's mis-characterizing our immigration policy as tackling world poverty and population growth. It doesn't. The guy is throwing out vague terms like "The elites" (like who?), making bold assumptions without evidence (if we didn't allow immigration, those immigrants would work hard in their own country and make it better!), and shoe-horns in population growth for no other reason I can see other than to stoke xenophobia (the scary foreign horde!)
The US tackles world poverty through foreign aid carrots to poor countries to develop themselves and by funding charities/non-profits to provide education/medicine/loans/etc.
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Read the whole post. Read the first and second line. The point was why do 2 judges rulings conflict? and one is treated as law and the other ignored.
This other judge doesnt matter if he was appointed 99-0. Appears like he is an activist. Its funny , I dont like george fucking bush yet anyone tries to make some point to me (libertarian by the way), its always well george bush appointed him!!! Like I give 2 fucks? Then I try the same tactic back in their face that obama did the same shit saying how dare the supreme court rule on something like they did to their face, yet people dismiss it, ah not the same thing. Its the exact same fucking thing man.
Im only defending trump in here because you get a bunch of fake news leftist hysteria and its so over the top absurd and lies that it makes people even in the center have to step back and defend trump. The left is re electing trump as we speak. You can only shout hitler, homophobe, racist, on every single thing he does for so long before people roll their eyes and tune you the fuck out.
The fact is this judge didnt use any part of the law to defend his decision. Just blanket derp constitution. Ive listened to many discussions on this. It is completely constitutional.
unless it's 4-4 and we have legal chaos (you can thank Republicans for letting a Court vacancy sit for like a year).
Or you could thank them for enforcing the "joe biden " rule of not appointing a supreme court nominee in an election year and letting the country choose the person who will appoint. Democrats are going to stonewall Goresuch for they are estimating 10 months. They dont seem to be in a rush unless its their nominee either.
Or you could thank them for enforcing the "joe biden " rule of not appointing a supreme court nominee in an election year and letting the country choose the person who will appoint. Democrats are going to stonewall Goresuch for they are estimating 10 months. They dont seem to be in a rush unless its their nominee either.
There is no such thing as the Biden rule except in Republican talking points. Yes, he said that, but even the Supreme Court pick he was talking about in that clip went through. It's a made up talking point Republicans created to justify to the public the unpresidented (lol) crap they were pulling.
An appeals court denied the Justice Department injunction to stop the lower court ruling and the reversal of the ban remains in place. Is this judge an activist in your mind too? Perhaps you should teach them about Constitutional Law?
Like quest said a couple of pages ago. Shoes on the other foot now. Libs didn’t have a problem when Obama was in charge doing whatever he wanted.
Obviously you weren't paying attention, because many on the left did have a problem with Obama's policies of the continued reliance of drone strikes, continued use of Guantanemo Bay, and lack of tougher Wall Street regs.
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
So for example, while I'm sure it's clear by many of my posts that I tend to lean on the more liberal side of things, I would agree with cirellio that the 'trumpdonald' website that was referenced is ridiculous, disrespectful, and does nothing to actually accomplish any change. I don't always succeed at this, but I personally actually TRY to take the high road as much as I can---there are so many things I can disagree with about Trump's policy viewpoints and behaviors and statements, that I don't feel the need to make fun of his hair, or his skin, or his weight, or anything else. In fact, it is very upsetting to me when people DON'T take the high road because it makes people generalize and stereotype anyone who doesn't agree with something.
I get so incredibly frustrated when I see people using some of the stupid things certain 'fringe' supporters do and then use that behavior to rubber-stamp everyone on one political party or side.
It is so much more complicated than that. People are so much more complicated than that. Don't assume that because someone doesn't like Trump that they supported every single thing Obama did. Don't assume that someone who didn't like Hilary is a huge Trump supporter. In fact, just try not to assume period, without having some point of reference.
We spend so much time arguing about this side versus that side that all of the issues just get left behind and no one gets anywhere. Try to be open-minded. Try not to be so defensive. TRY to understand where someone else is coming from. It doesn't mean we all have to agree - by no means will that ever happen. But we should try to stop making so many assumptions and generalizations and stereotypes--all around.
Finally, I know we all want to be right and think we are right and want to prove the opposition wrong, but sometimes with policy and politics there is no right and there is no wrong! We should all remember that. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for what we believe is right, but we just have to understand that there isn't some unequivocal and objective 'correct' answer to every problem or issue.
All the more reason checks and balances are so important. If one party/person/etc had all the right answers, then how come there is not one time in the history of all the word that a dictatorship (of any kind) actually worked out well for its country/citizens?
I forgot to mention one other checks and balances...hawks vs doves. See if all we had were hawks, we'd look like war mongering dickwads. But if all we had were doves, then all the "bad dudes" (as Trump calls them) could just overrun all over us. So once again, we need both sides to temper one another.
The fact that we have a man in office that makes decisions one day then does a complete 180 the next doesn't bode well. While I am glad he changed his mind on this issue, the fact he wears his job on his sleeve and acts with emotion rather than head has me concerned. What if he passes a bill like this? Or makes some other hasty decision not in the best interest of the people? Starts a war without sleeping on it. "Oops maybe I should have thought about it first before I deployed that nuke!!!"
The fact that we have a man in office that makes decisions one day then does a complete 180 the next doesn't bode well. While I am glad he changed his mind on this issue, the fact he wears his job on his sleeve and acts with emotion rather than head has me concerned. What if he passes a bill like this? Or makes some other hasty decision not in the best interest of the people? Starts a war without sleeping on it. "Oops maybe I should have thought about it first before I deployed that nuke!!!"
Sounds made up. Sounds the same as when it was first announced.
One the one hand, you have Trump and his people trivializing what these people dealt with by claiming people were minorly inconvenienced.
On the other hand, sone of those people and their families literally feared for their lives and thought they were going to be sent to their deaths.
I'll give it a watch/listen later.
So the United States turning people away at the border and shipping them back to their homeland could actually result in death or severe persecution of the immigrant when they return? That's deep...
Citizens don't realise how privledged we really are to live here compared to much of the world.
One the one hand, you have Trump and his people trivializing what these people dealt with by claiming people were minorly inconvenienced.
On the other hand, sone of those people and their families literally feared for their lives and thought they were going to be sent to their deaths.
I'll give it a watch/listen later.
So the United States turning people away at the border and shipping them back to their homeland could actually result in death or severe persecution of the immigrant when they return? That's deep...
Citizens don't realise how privledged we really are to live here compared to much of the world.
Yes of the "very small number" of people "inconvenienced" by this, some of them were definitely in the position that sending them home would literally be signing their death warrant.
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
now I wont doubt people are getting more settled in their respective camps of politics. But man I dont know, from my personal libertarian point of view , the democratic party is so progressive leftist now I dont think its possible to be equally moving apart from the middle. From my perspective republicans are pretty much right now what the democrats were for years. They were pretty much the same thing minus some social issues which conservatives have been pretty consistent and stubborn on.
I was listening to a podcast and even Dave Rubin who is a liberal democrat and gay for what that is worth says he cant even recognize the liberal democrat party. Its completely lost its focus. He no longer considers himself a liberal because the party left him. It was interesting to listen to.
This isnt a debate on which sides better just saying I think the left has gone further left than the republicans further right. But like I said the people supporting those parties are pretty loyal now. They have their camps.
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
I have mentioned this before that the two-party system has become increasingly divided and polarized with each election cycle. The primary system ensures that Independants have no voice, and consistently extreme candidates are chosen over moderates. We desparately need a "moderate" commander in chief to fix this country. I don't even care anymore if they are republican or Democrat. I think Sanders or Cruz would have both made excelent presidents, but instead America had to pick between a corrupt liberal with tons of political experience, and a conservative with zero experience and a massive ego complex.
I originally registered as Independant at 18 when I registered to vote. Much later I changed it to democrat in 2008. But with the devisiveness in our country reaching disproportionate levels, I may go back to independant. This whole election year and the aftermath of it just makes me sick...
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
now I wont doubt people are getting more settled in their respective camps of politics. But man I dont know, from my personal libertarian point of view , the democratic party is so progressive leftist now I dont think its possible to be equally moving apart from the middle. From my perspective republicans are pretty much right now what the democrats were for years. They were pretty much the same thing minus some social issues which conservatives have been pretty consistent and stubborn on.
I was listening to a podcast and even Dave Rubin who is a liberal democrat and gay for what that is worth says he cant even recognize the liberal democrat party. Its completely lost its focus. He no longer considers himself a liberal because the party left him. It was interesting to listen to.
This isnt a debate on which sides better just saying I think the left has gone further left than the republicans further right. But like I said the people supporting those parties are pretty loyal now. They have their camps.
If Trump hadn't made his miraculous run our president would of been a Teabagger
Comments
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Exactly. System of checks and balances. The Excecutive branch executes (carries out) the law, the Legislative branch legislates (writes) the law, and the Judicial branch judges (interprets) the law. Time and time again the three branches of the Federal government work to keep each other in check and prevent any one branch from overreaching their authority.
I know how the shit works stardust. You just explained 4th grade level social studies. Congrats
This EO isnt unconstitutional.
The point was we have another judge rule it constitutional. So one of the doesnt matter but the other does? The judge created a clusterfuck
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Read the whole post. Read the first and second line. The point was why do 2 judges rulings conflict? and one is treated as law and the other ignored.
This other judge doesnt matter if he was appointed 99-0. Appears like he is an activist. Its funny , I dont like george fucking bush yet anyone tries to make some point to me (libertarian by the way), its always well george bush appointed him!!! Like I give 2 fucks? Then I try the same tactic back in their face that obama did the same shit saying how dare the supreme court rule on something like they did to their face, yet people dismiss it, ah not the same thing. Its the exact same fucking thing man.
Im only defending trump in here because you get a bunch of fake news leftist hysteria and its so over the top absurd and lies that it makes people even in the center have to step back and defend trump. The left is re electing trump as we speak. You can only shout hitler, homophobe, racist, on every single thing he does for so long before people roll their eyes and tune you the fuck out.
The fact is this judge didnt use any part of the law to defend his decision. Just blanket derp constitution. Ive listened to many discussions on this. It is completely constitutional.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
No way of justifying it, other than maybe she might give in after the school year. But Sasha Obama has some explaining to do too. She gets secret service detail until she turns 16 next year. Also, the currently living past presidents and their wives get eternal secret sevice detail as well, well at least until they pass away anyway.
trump said a loooong time ago if he won that melania would stay in new york till barron was done with the school year. This was already a known thing.
I made jokes then that the white house is a downgrade lol.
Exactly. System of checks and balances. The Excecutive branch executes (carries out) the law, the Legislative branch legislates (writes) the law, and the Judicial branch judges (interprets) the law. Time and time again the three branches of the Federal government work to keep each other in check and prevent any one branch from overreaching their authority.
Oh checks and balances goes much further than that! The two party system is one also. Even in countries with mutliple parties there is usually one main left-of-center and one main right-of-center party (like our D's and R's) and in countries with a parliment where you must have a majority (over half the seats, not just the most seats), one of those two main parties may need to form a coaliation with one or more minor "helper" parties so to speak. In any event, when one party is in power too long and gets too comfortable/complacient, then the voters tend to want to "change course" to the other side. For example, in 1933-69, the D's had the White House seven out of nine terms, but 1969-2009 the R's had the White House seven out of ten terms. Also, since 1953 only once has the same party held the White House for more than two terms in a row (1981-93).
Another check and balance is government regulation versus free enterprise. When there is too much unregulated capitalism, you have government regulations to help keep it in check. Conversely, when goverment regulation/big government goes too far, we made need to loosen the reins on capitalism. Once again, it's a balancing act.
Even the Electoral College is checks and balances in a way. Without it, the candidates would only bother going to the biggest cities and other population centers, and nobody would care about rural areas or smaller populated states. With the Electoral College, sure the states with the most people get the most electoral votes, but at least the less populated/more rural states count also, and of course it's quite possible just one or two of those smaller states in a close enough election could determine the outcome! Sure it was 29 Electoral Vote Florida that decided the 2000 election, but it could've just as easily been teeny little 4 EV's New Hampshire! No joke!
So as you can see, there many other checks and balances that are just as if not more important than the three branches of gov't we were all taught in elementary school.
I know how the shit works stardust. You just explained 4th grade level social studies. Congrats
This EO isnt unconstitutional.
The point was we have another judge rule it constitutional. So one of the doesnt matter but the other does? The judge created a clusterfuck
The "clusterfuck" is Trump not doing diligent fact checking to see if his shit is kosher before filing these ludicrus Executive Orders.
And being stubborn as a mule. "It's my way or the Highway; screw what my advisors think; screw the will of the people; screw what any other world leaders think of us. You guys elected me to do the job, I'm gonna do it my way, and if you don't like it, you can shove it strait to Hades because I'm the fucking president..."
I know how the shit works stardust. You just explained 4th grade level social studies. Congrats
This EO isnt unconstitutional.
The point was we have another judge rule it constitutional. So one of the doesnt matter but the other does? The judge created a clusterfuck
The "clusterfuck" is Trump not doing diligent fact checking to see if his shit is kosher before filing these ludicrus Executive Orders.
And being stubborn as a mule. "It's my way or the Highway; screw what my advisors think; screw the will of the people; screw what any other world leaders think of us. You guys elected me to do the job, I'm gonna do it my way, and if you don't like it, you can shove it strait to Hades because I'm the fucking president..."
Well Ive said repeatedly the execution rollout of it was sloppy. So I dont know what else to say. The problem was clarification of current green card holders. Well that was tweaked and fixed. That was cleared up and we were moving on. Then this judge pauses the whole thing and clusterfucks it again.
And your being a little dramatic stardust. cmon. Your getting all worked up again with the emojis. Take a break from politics.
Ludicrous executive orders? yup all of them are ludicrous....smh. Cmon man where were you when obama said he was going to do everything he could with a pen and a phone to bypass congress doing all types of questionable actions. You didnt seem to get worked up back then. Just calm down. Everything will be fine. You seem to rant on emotions in here and not on facts or looking things up yourself.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump has thrown Washington into a state of anxious uncertainty."
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Read the whole post. Read the first and second line. The point was why do 2 judges rulings conflict? and one is treated as law and the other ignored.
This other judge doesnt matter if he was appointed 99-0. Appears like he is an activist. Its funny , I dont like george fucking bush yet anyone tries to make some point to me (libertarian by the way), its always well george bush appointed him!!! Like I give 2 fucks? Then I try the same tactic back in their face that obama did the same shit saying how dare the supreme court rule on something like they did to their face, yet people dismiss it, ah not the same thing. Its the exact same fucking thing man.
Im only defending trump in here because you get a bunch of fake news leftist hysteria and its so over the top absurd and lies that it makes people even in the center have to step back and defend trump. The left is re electing trump as we speak. You can only shout hitler, homophobe, racist, on every single thing he does for so long before people roll their eyes and tune you the fuck out.
The fact is this judge didnt use any part of the law to defend his decision. Just blanket derp constitution. Ive listened to many discussions on this. It is completely constitutional.
No offense, but you probably shouldn't be speaking down to other people about their ignorance of the justice system when you clearly do not understand the process that is playing out (no shame in that, btw, this shit is confusing). The judge issued a TRO, which only stays the action (in this case, the EO) while the case plays out. There is no requirement for legal reasoning at this time, that will come later when he makes an actual decision on the merits.
As for your apparent surprise that two judges could possibly have different rulings...I mean, is this seriously news to you? That's how the system works, just take a look at the Supreme Court itself! It is very rare we have unanimous decisions on the nation's highest court, because the laws and Constitution are often open to interpretation and people have differing opinions. That is one of the major reasons why courts exist in the first place. It's far from a surprise that two judges in different jurisdictions could come to different conclusions, that's just how things work. Sooner, rather than later, this case will make it in front of the Supreme Court and then we'll have the binding decision...unless it's 4-4 and we have legal chaos (you can thank Republicans for letting a Court vacancy sit for like a year).
Regarding the "fake news" rant, I hardly see how that is pertinent in any way here. I'd also cite to some data on how centrists and Independents (which I am registered, btw) currently view Trump, but I'm sure I'd get the "fake news" meme, so why bother?
Finally, with regards to the "Obama said he disagreed with a Supreme Court decision, which apparently is the same thing as tweeting a handful of times about how a "so-called judge" is going to get us killed, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Obama never questioned the role of the judiciary branch, he simply disagreed with some of their rulings. There is a distinct difference, probably borne from the fact that Obama wasn't a fascist at heart who told America that "only he could save it."
Well this video is interesting...
Not really that interesting, that guy is full of shit. He's mis-characterizing our immigration policy as tackling world poverty and population growth. It doesn't. The guy is throwing out vague terms like "The elites" (like who?), making bold assumptions without evidence (if we didn't allow immigration, those immigrants would work hard in their own country and make it better!), and shoe-horns in population growth for no other reason I can see other than to stoke xenophobia (the scary foreign horde!)
The US tackles world poverty through foreign aid carrots to poor countries to develop themselves and by funding charities/non-profits to provide education/medicine/loans/etc.
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Read the whole post. Read the first and second line. The point was why do 2 judges rulings conflict? and one is treated as law and the other ignored.
This other judge doesnt matter if he was appointed 99-0. Appears like he is an activist. Its funny , I dont like george fucking bush yet anyone tries to make some point to me (libertarian by the way), its always well george bush appointed him!!! Like I give 2 fucks? Then I try the same tactic back in their face that obama did the same shit saying how dare the supreme court rule on something like they did to their face, yet people dismiss it, ah not the same thing. Its the exact same fucking thing man.
Im only defending trump in here because you get a bunch of fake news leftist hysteria and its so over the top absurd and lies that it makes people even in the center have to step back and defend trump. The left is re electing trump as we speak. You can only shout hitler, homophobe, racist, on every single thing he does for so long before people roll their eyes and tune you the fuck out.
The fact is this judge didnt use any part of the law to defend his decision. Just blanket derp constitution. Ive listened to many discussions on this. It is completely constitutional.
unless it's 4-4 and we have legal chaos (you can thank Republicans for letting a Court vacancy sit for like a year).
Or you could thank them for enforcing the "joe biden " rule of not appointing a supreme court nominee in an election year and letting the country choose the person who will appoint. Democrats are going to stonewall Goresuch for they are estimating 10 months. They dont seem to be in a rush unless its their nominee either.
Or you could thank them for enforcing the "joe biden " rule of not appointing a supreme court nominee in an election year and letting the country choose the person who will appoint. Democrats are going to stonewall Goresuch for they are estimating 10 months. They dont seem to be in a rush unless its their nominee either.
There is no such thing as the Biden rule except in Republican talking points. Yes, he said that, but even the Supreme Court pick he was talking about in that clip went through. It's a made up talking point Republicans created to justify to the public the unpresidented (lol) crap they were pulling.
An appeals court denied the Justice Department injunction to stop the lower court ruling and the reversal of the ban remains in place. Is this judge an activist in your mind too? Perhaps you should teach them about Constitutional Law?
Like quest said a couple of pages ago. Shoes on the other foot now. Libs didn’t have a problem when Obama was in charge doing whatever he wanted.
Obviously you weren't paying attention, because many on the left did have a problem with Obama's policies of the continued reliance of drone strikes, continued use of Guantanemo Bay, and lack of tougher Wall Street regs.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/609/its-working-out-very-nicely
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
So for example, while I'm sure it's clear by many of my posts that I tend to lean on the more liberal side of things, I would agree with cirellio that the 'trumpdonald' website that was referenced is ridiculous, disrespectful, and does nothing to actually accomplish any change. I don't always succeed at this, but I personally actually TRY to take the high road as much as I can---there are so many things I can disagree with about Trump's policy viewpoints and behaviors and statements, that I don't feel the need to make fun of his hair, or his skin, or his weight, or anything else. In fact, it is very upsetting to me when people DON'T take the high road because it makes people generalize and stereotype anyone who doesn't agree with something.
I get so incredibly frustrated when I see people using some of the stupid things certain 'fringe' supporters do and then use that behavior to rubber-stamp everyone on one political party or side.
It is so much more complicated than that. People are so much more complicated than that. Don't assume that because someone doesn't like Trump that they supported every single thing Obama did. Don't assume that someone who didn't like Hilary is a huge Trump supporter. In fact, just try not to assume period, without having some point of reference.
We spend so much time arguing about this side versus that side that all of the issues just get left behind and no one gets anywhere. Try to be open-minded. Try not to be so defensive. TRY to understand where someone else is coming from. It doesn't mean we all have to agree - by no means will that ever happen. But we should try to stop making so many assumptions and generalizations and stereotypes--all around.
Finally, I know we all want to be right and think we are right and want to prove the opposition wrong, but sometimes with policy and politics there is no right and there is no wrong! We should all remember that. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for what we believe is right, but we just have to understand that there isn't some unequivocal and objective 'correct' answer to every problem or issue.
I forgot to mention one other checks and balances...hawks vs doves. See if all we had were hawks, we'd look like war mongering dickwads. But if all we had were doves, then all the "bad dudes" (as Trump calls them) could just overrun all over us. So once again, we need both sides to temper one another.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-jared-kusher-stops-235656168.html
The fact that we have a man in office that makes decisions one day then does a complete 180 the next doesn't bode well. While I am glad he changed his mind on this issue, the fact he wears his job on his sleeve and acts with emotion rather than head has me concerned. What if he passes a bill like this? Or makes some other hasty decision not in the best interest of the people? Starts a war without sleeping on it. "Oops maybe I should have thought about it first before I deployed that nuke!!!"
Seems the LGBT Executive Order was not "fake news" after all. Trumps daughter Ivanka and her hubby talked Trump down from signing it in the last hour:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka...
The fact that we have a man in office that makes decisions one day then does a complete 180 the next doesn't bode well. While I am glad he changed his mind on this issue, the fact he wears his job on his sleeve and acts with emotion rather than head has me concerned. What if he passes a bill like this? Or makes some other hasty decision not in the best interest of the people? Starts a war without sleeping on it. "Oops maybe I should have thought about it first before I deployed that nuke!!!"
Sounds made up. Sounds the same as when it was first announced.
This article sounds like straight yahoo gossip.
If anyone is interested in listening, this week's This American Life spoke with people who were directly impacted by Trump's immigration EO.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/...
Yeah, that was a great show.
One the one hand, you have Trump and his people trivializing what these people dealt with by claiming people were minorly inconvenienced.
On the other hand, sone of those people and their families literally feared for their lives and thought they were going to be sent to their deaths.
If anyone is interested in listening, this week's This American Life spoke with people who were directly impacted by Trump's immigration EO.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/609/...
Yeah, that was a great show.
One the one hand, you have Trump and his people trivializing what these people dealt with by claiming people were minorly inconvenienced.
On the other hand, sone of those people and their families literally feared for their lives and thought they were going to be sent to their deaths.
I'll give it a watch/listen later.
So the United States turning people away at the border and shipping them back to their homeland could actually result in death or severe persecution of the immigrant when they return? That's deep...
Citizens don't realise how privledged we really are to live here compared to much of the world.
If anyone is interested in listening, this week's This American Life spoke with people who were directly impacted by Trump's immigration EO.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/609/...
Yeah, that was a great show.
One the one hand, you have Trump and his people trivializing what these people dealt with by claiming people were minorly inconvenienced.
On the other hand, sone of those people and their families literally feared for their lives and thought they were going to be sent to their deaths.
I'll give it a watch/listen later.
So the United States turning people away at the border and shipping them back to their homeland could actually result in death or severe persecution of the immigrant when they return? That's deep...
Citizens don't realise how privledged we really are to live here compared to much of the world.
Yes of the "very small number" of people "inconvenienced" by this, some of them were definitely in the position that sending them home would literally be signing their death warrant.
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
now I wont doubt people are getting more settled in their respective camps of politics. But man I dont know, from my personal libertarian point of view , the democratic party is so progressive leftist now I dont think its possible to be equally moving apart from the middle. From my perspective republicans are pretty much right now what the democrats were for years. They were pretty much the same thing minus some social issues which conservatives have been pretty consistent and stubborn on.
I was listening to a podcast and even Dave Rubin who is a liberal democrat and gay for what that is worth says he cant even recognize the liberal democrat party. Its completely lost its focus. He no longer considers himself a liberal because the party left him. It was interesting to listen to.
This isnt a debate on which sides better just saying I think the left has gone further left than the republicans further right. But like I said the people supporting those parties are pretty loyal now. They have their camps.
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
I have mentioned this before that the two-party system has become increasingly divided and polarized with each election cycle. The primary system ensures that Independants have no voice, and consistently extreme candidates are chosen over moderates. We desparately need a "moderate" commander in chief to fix this country. I don't even care anymore if they are republican or Democrat. I think Sanders or Cruz would have both made excelent presidents, but instead America had to pick between a corrupt liberal with tons of political experience, and a conservative with zero experience and a massive ego complex.
I originally registered as Independant at 18 when I registered to vote. Much later I changed it to democrat in 2008. But with the devisiveness in our country reaching disproportionate levels, I may go back to independant. This whole election year and the aftermath of it just makes me sick...
The divide between democrats and republicans is becoming too worrisome.
This isn't a direct reply to any particular person or post, but I've been reading through this thread over the past few days and just taking it all in, and I have a few comments. Sorry if it sounds preachy
I continually see in discussions like this that it is obvious people put others in 'buckets' based on their perceived viewpoint and assume that they fit only in that bucket. What I mean by this, is that there is so much more to someone's personal opinions and viewpoints than just one extreme of conservatism or liberalism. And even if someone identifies more on the liberal side or the conservative side, it DOESN'T mean that they agree with everything that anyone on that 'side' believes or supporters believe. There aren't unified groups of democrats or republicans / liberals or conservatives, where everyone gets together for a team huddle in the morning each day, and makes sure everyone has the same message and believes in the same thing.
Unfortunately people are moving towards these camps of absolutes. I've been harping on this all thread, but that is the true thing to be worried about in regards to our future
now I wont doubt people are getting more settled in their respective camps of politics. But man I dont know, from my personal libertarian point of view , the democratic party is so progressive leftist now I dont think its possible to be equally moving apart from the middle. From my perspective republicans are pretty much right now what the democrats were for years. They were pretty much the same thing minus some social issues which conservatives have been pretty consistent and stubborn on.
I was listening to a podcast and even Dave Rubin who is a liberal democrat and gay for what that is worth says he cant even recognize the liberal democrat party. Its completely lost its focus. He no longer considers himself a liberal because the party left him. It was interesting to listen to.
This isnt a debate on which sides better just saying I think the left has gone further left than the republicans further right. But like I said the people supporting those parties are pretty loyal now. They have their camps.
If Trump hadn't made his miraculous run our president would of been a Teabagger