Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Evan]

It is the folks from "Rent A Mob" who are on George Soros' payroll. He(Soros) needs to be dealt with in my opinion.

The various sites that have made this allegation against Soros have been previously debunked by numerous fact-checking entities.

Could you share evidence or proof with us that shows Soros is paying for protesters? All I've ever seen are extremely tenuous guilt by very vague association articles on conspiracy-minded websites.

Billionaires like Soros, Gates, and others donate to a variety of large advocacy and policy groups. Those groups distribute grants and funds to an even larger amount of groups and individuals that then frequently distribute or donate funds to different individuals and groups. It is not abnormal to see money filter through as many as a dozen or more different levels before reaching its final destination.

I'd guarantee you that Trump's Foundation has donated money that has found its way to nefarious groups or individuals. Almost certainly even some of the groups now protesting Trump. Trump Foundation money has likely even funded illegal immigration. Of course Trump himself stopped funding his own foundation many years ago, but the point remains. Political and charitable donations indirectly fund a massive variety of groups. I'm sure many Republican and Democrat donors have indirectly funded their opponents, terrorism, and a huge variety of people/groups contradictory to their own beliefs.

The level of evidence that has been provided for these types of accusations in the past has been false, exaggerated, or basically a case of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

You can link any person or group in the United States to a random person in 6 steps or less:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

If you have new evidence or proof that shows direct ties then I'm certainly open to hearing it. Thanks.

 

[apocalyptic_pleasures]

Its a pretty sad day when the president of our country can not protect us from our enemies because a few butt-hurt democrat minded judges get their panties in a wad and want to put the nation at risk to go political by blocking the republican presidents order because they just don't like him! He has an obligation to protect us and should be allowed to do so!!! Oh and constitution does not apply here since these refugees (invaders) are not citizens

 

[KoD]

Its a pretty sad day when the president of our country can not protect us from our enemies because a few butt-hurt democrat minded judges get their panties in a wad and want to put the nation at risk to go political by blocking the republican presidents order because they just don't like him! He has an obligation to protect us and should be allowed to do so!!!

Are you referring to the federal judge appointed by George Bush in 2004 that struck it down? The appeals court, 9th circuit, is fairly liberal leaning from what I've read but this hardly seems as political as you're making it out to be. I think we've had enough evidence posted on here for any rational person to see that this does not protect us nor is it even marginally as important as domestic issues that kill numerous people every day, year round.

It's a pretty sad day when the President tarnishes America's reputation further among the rest of the world by imposing such a useless, offensive ban. Worse is that he's consuming his time with it instead of focusing on doing what matters most, affairs within this country. In my opinion political corruption is the most appealing aspect of the platform he ran on. A broken government can't fix a broken country. I want to see him spend time working on that first and foremost.

 

[gangstonc]

“I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done,” Trump said in 2015. “I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off

 

[Evan]

Its a pretty sad day when the president of our country can not protect us from our enemies because a few butt-hurt democrat minded judges get their panties in a wad and want to put the nation at risk to go political by blocking the republican presidents order because they just don't like him! He has an obligation to protect us and should be allowed to do so!!! Oh and constitution does not apply here since these refugees (invaders) are not citizens

Long-standing federal precedence is that non-citizens have Constitutional protection when on U.S. soil. Please provide a case that says otherwise. I'll help you out...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3445314/Boston-TRO-Expires.pdf

From the Judge that recently refused to block Trump's Executive Order:

The Fifth Amendment protects aliens within the United States from “invidious discrimination by the Federal Government.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77); see also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 69 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 21 -9- 118 U.S. 356, 369, (1886) (“[Equal Protection is] universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”). There is a distinction, however, between the constitutional rights enjoyed by aliens who have entered the United States and those who are outside of it. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).

 

[Evan]

What's interesting is that the Washington state case that has Trump so upset wouldn't be possible without the case that Conservatives filed to block Obama's expansion of DACA/DAPA. Judge Hanen said Texas had standing because it would incur costs by issuing driver's licenses to those that received benefits under DACA. The State of Washington is using that as precedence (their state-funded Universities have to replace employees blocked from returning by Trump's EO) as their argument for standing before the Washington Federal District Court (which implemented a TRO), and before the 9th Circuit. Since Judge Hanen's case was appealed to SCOTUS and ended in a 4-4 tie, the precedence of a State having standing if they can show costs being forced on them due to an EO seems to be binding at this point. Kind of ironic when you think about it, but the Washington case is also making a legal argument about religious freedom that Conservatives will actually like and Liberals will have serious issues with. Just goes to show the judiciary is always good at giving everyone something to complain about.

Everyone is presuming that the 9th Circuit will refuse to stay the Federal District Court order. I wouldn't bet my life on that. The motions panel currently has a Carter appointee and an Obama appointee. The Obama appointee is actually pretty moderate, and I don't think this is a slam-dunk for those that oppose the EO. Either way, this is going to end up before SCOTUS at some point. I'd say the odds are 75/25 that the 9th Circuit refuses to stay the order, but I wouldn't be shocked if they actually stay the order for now. Unlikely, that they will, but the two judges assigned are actually well-regarded judges that have a history of applying the law as it is written. So we shall see.

 

[apocalyptic_pleasures]

Long-standing federal precedence is that non-citizens have Constitutional protection when on U.S. soil. Please provide a case that says otherwise. I'll help you out...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3445314/Boston-TRO-Expires.pdf

From the Judge that recently refused to block Trump's Executive Order:

The Fifth Amendment protects aliens within the United States from “invidious discrimination by the Federal Government.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77); see also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 69 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 21 -9- 118 U.S. 356, 369, (1886) (“[Equal Protection is] universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”). There is a distinction, however, between the constitutional rights enjoyed by aliens who have entered the United States and those who are outside of it. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).

They won't be within the United states if they aren't brought here in the first place so they will have zero rights and if they somehow get here with the EO in effect they should be detained as the invaders they are.

I would guess that the judge who overturned the EO was with the president during his top secret clearance briefings so he knows the entire situation such that he was able to say with 100% confidence that it is not dire and the EO was not justified. Right now would be the perfect time for anyone with bad intent who wants in to hurry up and get in while the Federal officials are distracted and busy arguing back and forth rather than unifying and backing up what the president says.

 

[David in SW Blount]

As an aside, it's a sad commentary that so many high tech companies in the U.S. are dependent on foreign workers and have/had a number of employees stranded by the travel ban. We don't have nearly enough American students willing to do the work to get degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering, etc. and/or they're simply not prepared when they get to college.

 

[Evan]

They won't be within the United states if they aren't brought here in the first place so they will have zero rights and if they somehow get here with the EO in effect they should be detained as the invaders they are.

The Executive Order isn't currently in effect, remember? It has been temporarily restrained. Your point, while absolutely ludicrous, doesn't even apply. If you are on US soil you have Constitutional Rights. Period.

I would guess that the judge who overturned the EO was with the president during his top secret clearance briefings so he knows the entire situation such that he was able to say with 100% confidence that it is not dire and the EO was not justified.

What intelligence reports? Trump rarely receives the PDB. If the US government wants to make an argument that intelligence briefings back up the Executive Order then they can do so. In fact, that's one argument they make in their brief. However, it is unlikely Top Secret intelligence is involved, and even if it were, redacted or summarized reports can be provided that don't require a security clearance. That burden of proof is on the government. They made that argument so they have to back it up.

They can also invoke state secrets privilege, or even provide documents in camera to the judge. You don't seem to understand what has actually happened in court so far. The Federal District Judge has not ruled on whether or not the order is proper. He has simply restrained certain portions of the EO from being enforced as he believes the plaintiffs have both the standing and legal arguments to win an injunction against the EO on Constitutional grounds. No one is bigger than the Constitution. The Judge has a hearing set to hear full arguments from both sides -- if the government proves its case he will not issue an injunction, and the TRO will be lifted.

Right now would be the perfect time for anyone with bad intent who wants in to hurry up and get in while the Federal officials are distracted and busy arguing back and forth rather than unifying and backing up what the president says.

So, they didn't have time to do that in the prior decades before Trump became President? How many times did Trump say publicly he was going to ban Muslims? You don't think terrorists know who the President is or didn't hear about any of the prior 50+ times that he said he wanted to ban Muslims?

We are to believe terrorists are so sophisticated that they can forge visas or refugee documents, construct elaborate personas and identities to appear to be a law-abiding student, doctor, businessman, tourist, or refugee, but they are too dumb to use a calendar and mark down the date of Trump's inauguration as the cutoff for when they need their terrorist operatives to be in the US?

Trump's Executive Order is so necessary for national security that a court shouldn't even be allowed to pause it for 1 minute to check its Constitutionality, but Trump taking 8 days to sign it was just fine? How is that even remotely logical? Is your argument, then, that Trump risked our national security by not having the order ready to sign the first day he took office? Because Trump has said that any attack that takes place while his ban is blocked is on the judge. Does that mean any attacker that entered before the ban is Trump's responsibility? If an attacker is from one of the countries that Trump didn't include does that mean that attack is Trump's fault?

If Trump was so concerned about people from those 7 countries then why didn't he also sign an Executive Order that re-instated the domestic registration part of NSEERS? Could it be because Trump's Executive Order was just security theater and wasn't meant to make us safer? After all, doesn't his EO just completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of people from those countries already here? Obama's admin has stopped using NSEERS for years before he dismantled it in late December. Why wouldn't Trump immediately reinstate NSEERS? After all, it had never been ruled Unconstitutional. Sure, security experts don't believe it makes us that much safer, but aren't you the one who believes anything is justified if it saves just one life?

I look forward to seeing your reasoning as to how Trump didn't harm our national security by not being ready to sign the EO right after he was inaugurated. And, obviously, I know you have detailed arguments for why Trump hasn't re-started NSEERS and why he hadn't done anything about hundreds of thousands of people already here.

It couldn't be that our vetting for visas is already terrific, and that the refugee vetting process is already extremely tight and effective. Because, as you've stated, the standard is "if just one life can be saved." Guess what? Unless you block 100% of immigration from every single country in the world, build massive walls along the southern and northern US border, ban US citizens from traveling in/out of the country, heavily mine our coastline, block the import of all foreign goods, and strip US Citizens of all their Constitutional rights, you will never stop finding ways to save "just one life."

I'd much rather be dead than live somewhere like that. Oddly enough, our Founding Fathers felt the exact same way.

 

[Evan]

Tom Cotton and David Purdue today introduced legislation that completely obliterates legal immigration to this country.

The bill completely eliminates the ability to sponsor brothers/sisters, parents, and children (if married or if over 21). This assures that those that waited and did things the legal way will suffer greatly.

Going forward, US citizens will only be able to sponsor their spouse or unmarried minor children. Not only does the bill do this, but it also says that if you file immigration papers after the bill was introduced (which was today), your filing is automatically invalidated.

If you are someone who did things the right way, you are now having the rug pulled out from under you. This applies to all countries and applies to all citizens.

If you are US military and want to sponsor your non-citizen brother then too bad. If you worked for the US military and are escaping a country hostile to your family, too bad. You can bring your wife or unmarried child under 21, but you have to leave any children over 21, your brother/sister, and your parents to die.

As many of you know, my wife is from South America. She and her siblings have college degrees. Her brother is an airline pilot and her sister is a business professional like she is. My wife has been a US citizen since 2014. This bill prevents my wife's parents from moving here and opening up the business that they've been wanting to open. We did every single thing legally. Paid thousands of dollars.

But we have not yet filed the paperwork for her parents. They were continuing to work and save money until absolutely sure they could come here and be successful. This bill states that they are not allowed to come here. They can visit (subject to a few months a year), but that is it. If (God forbid) something happened to my wife, they would no longer be able to help out with our children.

Millions of immigrants have been told that if they did things the legal way and did what was right that they'd benefit from it. Cotton's bill basically says all of them were suckers for believing that. The people who immigrated illegally were the smart ones. They came and got their residency. Many are now citizens.

This has nothing to do with Trump's travel ban. This applies to every person in the world unless a spouse or an unmarried child.

But, you might say... it hasn't passed yet. Why so worried? It could take months. As I said, that doesn't matter. The bill is written so that today was the last day to be able to even start the process to bring a relative to the US. Doesn't matter how educated or wealthy they are. You cannot file after today if the bill passes.

Of course temporary visas or employment visas like the one David mentioned are not being touched. And, as Trump himself has said, those who came here without following the legal process have nothing to worry about. They were smart to get in and not do things the right way.

Sad day for this country and for the World. Highly likely that every single person on this forum was an immigrant or their forefathers were brought over by an immigrant sibling, parent, or child. If this bill passes the United States immigration system is shutdown except for visas for big business.

 

[Evan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/immigration-trump-senate-cotton-234706

 

[Stormlover]

Wow, the media is silent about this
http://truepundit.com/shattered-vid...ibrary-crushes-elizabeth-warren-racial-stunt/

 

[gangstonc]

Wow, the media is silent about this
http://truepundit.com/shattered-vid...ibrary-crushes-elizabeth-warren-racial-stunt/

Washington does nothing but stunt after stunt. I'm ashamed of literally 95% of our leadership.

 

[Evan]

Wow, the media is silent about this
http://truepundit.com/shattered-vid...ibrary-crushes-elizabeth-warren-racial-stunt/

Odd. Don't see anything on the "news" site you linked debunking Kellyanne Conway's 3 different claims of a Bowling Green Massacre," nor does it mention anything about Spicer recently making 3 different claims about a terror attack in Atlanta that the Atlanta PD & Atlanta FBI said did not occur.

Bizzarre. I mean the Kellyanne Conway thing has been reported in a lot of places. Why is Truepundit burying that story?

Oh, and any reason they don't have any stories on Trump's attack on the judiciary? Even Gorsuch, today, said the comments were disheartening and demoralizing.

Hmm. I didn't realize Trumpers were big fans of Rosa Parks. Didn't a major Trumper recently say Rosa Parks was overrated and that MLK was a convicted felon because of his civil rights activities? Why isn't the media reporting this?

 

[Evan]

BTW, I don't think anything proves that Sessions is a racist. The King letter certainly doesn't prove it. And securing funding for a Rosa Parks museum or Coretta Scott King thanking someone for doing that also isn't proof he isn't a racist. But I also know from personal experience that Sessions is very sensitive to race issues. Especially pertaining to African Americans. He does not want to upset them.

 

[ghost]

Tom Cotton and David Purdue today introduced legislation that completely obliterates legal immigration to this country.

The bill completely eliminates the ability to sponsor brothers/sisters, parents, and children (if married or if over 21). This assures that those that waited and did things the legal way will suffer greatly.

Going forward, US citizens will only be able to sponsor their spouse or unmarried minor children. Not only does the bill do this, but it also says that if you file immigration papers after the bill was introduced (which was today), your filing is automatically invalidated.

If you are someone who did things the right way, you are now having the rug pulled out from under you. This applies to all countries and applies to all citizens.

If you are US military and want to sponsor your non-citizen brother then too bad. If you worked for the US military and are escaping a country hostile to your family, too bad. You can bring your wife or unmarried child under 21, but you have to leave any children over 21, your brother/sister, and your parents to die.

As many of you know, my wife is from South America. She and her siblings have college degrees. Her brother is an airline pilot and her sister is a business professional like she is. My wife has been a US citizen since 2014. This bill prevents my wife's parents from moving here and opening up the business that they've been wanting to open. We did every single thing legally. Paid thousands of dollars.

But we have not yet filed the paperwork for her parents. They were continuing to work and save money until absolutely sure they could come here and be successful. This bill states that they are not allowed to come here. They can visit (subject to a few months a year), but that is it. If (God forbid) something happened to my wife, they would no longer be able to help out with our children.

Millions of immigrants have been told that if they did things the legal way and did what was right that they'd benefit from it. Cotton's bill basically says all of them were suckers for believing that. The people who immigrated illegally were the smart ones. They came and got their residency. Many are now citizens.

This has nothing to do with Trump's travel ban. This applies to every person in the world unless a spouse or an unmarried child.

But, you might say... it hasn't passed yet. Why so worried? It could take months. As I said, that doesn't matter. The bill is written so that today was the last day to be able to even start the process to bring a relative to the US. Doesn't matter how educated or wealthy they are. You cannot file after today if the bill passes.

Of course temporary visas or employment visas like the one David mentioned are not being touched. And, as Trump himself has said, those who came here without following the legal process have nothing to worry about. They were smart to get in and not do things the right way.

Sad day for this country and for the World. Highly likely that every single person on this forum was an immigrant or their forefathers were brought over by an immigrant sibling, parent, or child. If this bill passes the United States immigration system is shutdown except for visas for big business.

Evan.. I have friends who are well into the process of trying to adopt a 3 children (siblings) from overseas. Would this legislation hinder them?

 

[Matt]

As an aside, it's a sad commentary that so many high tech companies in the U.S. are dependent on foreign workers and have/had a number of employees stranded by the travel ban. We don't have nearly enough American students willing to do the work to get degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering, etc. and/or they're simply not prepared when they get to college.

I don't think they are as dependent as you think. They can hire the foreign worker at a fraction of the price of an American. Case in point my sister. She worked in IT for Columbia HCA for 15 years in Nashville. Very brilliant woman. She was replaced by an Indian that she had to train in order to receive her severance package. Happened throughout the company. This happens throughout the high tech sector.

 

[KoD]

I don't think they are as dependent as you think. They can hire the foreign worker at a fraction of the price of an American. Case in point my sister. She worked in IT for Columbia HCA for 15 years in Nashville. Very brilliant woman. She was replaced by an Indian that she had to train in order to receive her severance package. Happened throughout the company. This happens throughout the high tech sector.

We all hate that foreign labor is cheaper and jobs are lost overseas to Vietnamese and Chinese clothing manufactures for example, but eventually with technology it'll be easier and cheaper to hire foreigners to operate robotic controls from their country that perform real tasks in the US. It's a losing battle to try and bring all the jobs back in the long run IMO. Things can be done for now, but going back to the good old days isn't a long term solution.

 

[gangstonc]

Wow, the media is silent about this
http://truepundit.com/shattered-vid...ibrary-crushes-elizabeth-warren-racial-stunt/

I just had time to watch the video. She thanked him as part of a long list of people. I don't know if you have ever given a speech like that, but you generally thank everybody there who did anything at all, even if you disagree with them. This article is stupid and a waste of time. She wasn't thanking him for being some wonderful person who personally helped her cause. The reason why the media didn't pick up on this is because it is such a tremendous stretch. Only the alt-right are going to think it is anything of substance.

Now, I think the bigger issue would be the things Sessions did in support of Rosa Parks.

 

[KoD]