US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

[sToNED_CAT]

But THEIR rights were not violated! There's no constitutional right to invite someone to immigrate to US, recruit students, workers etc.

[JGP]

8 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

But THEIR rights were not violated! There's no constitutional right to invite someone to immigrate to US, recruit students, workers etc.

Sure about that? Are Christian and Catholic Americans seeing their lives possibly effected in the same manner?

ETA: read, Establishment and Equal Protection Clause

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The next time you see people disparaging the validity of anthropogenic climate change, please remember statements like these. What you are doing is taking something scientifically proven to a reasonable degree of certainty, tying it to something that may or may not be true and then tying that to a social phenomenon that has at least a dozen of plausible causes. To wit:

1) The heating of the planet due to the carbon dioxide we release by burning fossil fuels is a scientific fact. There is uncertainty on the extent of it (different models provide different results), but on the whole it is not disputed except for people with an agenda.

2) There is far less consensus on the relationship between this warming and any specific climate or weather event. It is plausible that such events would be altered by the warming, but it is really difficult to prove for any given one. After all, there have been plenty of droughts, floods, typhoons, etc. before humans were able influence the climate and longer-term changes have likewise occurred throughout history. For example, at certain points in time the Sahara desert wasn't a desert and at others, the desert extended further than it does today.

3) There is even less consensus on what exactly is to blame for a conflict in a given region. The region specific to this case has been the site of conflict throughout recorded history.

Again, I said very specifically that a climate event caused this. Which it did. This is documented truth - that Syrians that were rural moved to the cities in record numbers, and this in turn caused a lot of stress on the Syrian infrastructure and political system. This in particular allowed the rebels to have a lot more supporters than they would have. But yes, a drought worse than any in the last 900 years is going to cause some issues.

My point is not that this was the result of global warming; it doesn't matter if it is or isn't. My point is simply that these sorts of things will happen more frequently in the future. You will see more droughts, more floodings, more loss of ecology needed to sustain harvesting, and that in turn will cause economic and political instability.

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Just because one judge ruled that the ban should be reviewed, doesn't matter he will also rule that it's unconstitutional. In fact it is highly unlikely, because foreigners have no constitutional rights. The same about appeals court.

For example that Boston judge blocked it temporarily too, before declaring it is OK.

Foreigners are not without constitutional rights. This is 100% false, and has been ruled false an absurd number of times. You are completely wrong in this regard. 

18 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

That's completely absurd. How does being just relative of American citizen confers US constitutional rights to you? Those are individual rights not "family unit" rights.

If you are in the US legally you have almost every single constitutional right allowed a human. If you are here illegally you ALSO have almost every single right allowed a human, though there are a few that are restricted. If you have the right to be in the US legally you ALSO have almost every single constitutional right allowed a human.

[Fragile Bird]

10 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

But THEIR rights were not violated! There's no constitutional right to invite someone to immigrate to US, recruit students, workers etc.

I gather the decision, which I have not read yet, strikes at the EO on numerous fronts, including saying people who have never set foot in the US have a right to protection.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

But THEIR rights were not violated! There's no constitutional right to invite someone to immigrate to US, recruit students, workers etc.

There actually is a constitutional right to do these things as well - companies and other entities are allowed to recruit students, workers, and place policy around immigration per US law. 

 

[JGP]

In their ruling, it's alleged that the 9th Circuit have made Trump's previous comments about a Muslim Ban admissible, so... if true, Guiliani will probably get deposed, as well as a lot of his [Trump's] staff-- and he'll lose.

I think we're hearing the death knell of the EO. Back to the drafting table, kiddos.

[Zorral]

We have never had a potus endorsed by the KKK before little hands.  Griffith, Dixon etc. tried to get Wilson to endorse them but he wouldn't play that game for them.

He's gonna unleash 'em, and we're going to see a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow years, for there will be no legal repercussions and they want to go huntin' so bad!  Their trigger fingers are itching, itching, itching to turn those big expensive guns on black homse, schools, churches and communities in a communal orgy of blood and terror.

 

[Fez]

53 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Of course he is. What I'm wondering is: can he wait for Gorsuch to be confirmed before asking the Supreme Court to review the case?

In that case, Trump can get ruled against 6-3 instead of 6-2. Its hard to see Kennedy or Roberts overturning the lower courts on this. Kennedy is always skeptical of government programs, no matter what they are, and Roberts will want to emphasize the importance of the independent judiciary. 

Alito and Thomas would probably rule in favor, even though it'd be extremely hypocritical of them after how they ruled throughout Obama's administration. But then again, I'm not even sure if this is the kind of conservative action that would make them want to expand executive power. Its not something big businesses want.

[Rippounet]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn't say, and he doesn't say climate change has no human element.  What we say is that measureing and quantifying that element is very difficult. 

Sure. But what scientists agree on is that human activity is the major cause behind the climate change we are seeing today. It's not just about agreeing that it has "a human element" ; it's about admitting that the human element is the driving force behind it.
Anything less seems like an attempt to debate the scientific concensus to me.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 No Easy-D for Donnie. SAD. Where's all the WINNING?

 

 

/I was told there would be WINNING.

[sToNED_CAT]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I said very specifically that a climate event caused this. Which it did. This is documented truth - that Syrians that were rural moved to the cities in record numbers, and this in turn caused a lot of stress on the Syrian infrastructure and political system. This in particular allowed the rebels to have a lot more supporters than they would have. But yes, a drought worse than any in the last 900 years is going to cause some issues.

That's just absurd. Syria was not some rural country dependent on agriculture to that extent. You are not talking about fucking Chad or Mali. Syrian economy was relatively well diversified, not as well, when compared to western countries, but much better than other 3rd world nations.

There were revolutions over whole ME, even in places where there was no drought. How do you explain that? THe difference is simply that SYrian civil war has no winner, so it is far more bloody.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Foreigners are not without constitutional rights. This is 100% false, and has been ruled false an absurd number of times. You are completely wrong in this regard. 

If you are in the US legally you have almost every single constitutional right allowed a human. If you are here illegally you ALSO have almost every single right allowed a human, though there are a few that are restricted. If you have the right to be in the US legally you ALSO have almost every single constitutional right allowed a human.

Foreigners in US HAVE constitutional rights. But while this ban influenced some people who already are in US, it MOSTLY dealt with FUTURE immigration of people OUTSIDE US. At least that part of ban should be immediately upheld without any questioning.

[Fragile Bird]

I hate to say once again, we've seen it all before in Canada, but former PM Harper got into a pissing match with the Chief Justice of the SCC, and I really think he got the backs up of the entire court. I think some of the decisions they made after his attacks on her were more strongly worded against the government in cases the government had taken to court. Even his appointees stood with the full court, cause, you know, judges are independent.

[JGP]

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

Foreigners in US HAVE constitutional rights. But while this ban influenced some people who already are in US, it MOSTLY dealt with FUTURE immigration of people OUTSIDE US. At least that part of ban should be immediately upheld without any questioning.

le sigh. 

Asked and answered.

[sToNED_CAT]

10 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

In their ruling, it's alleged that the 9th Circuit have made Trump's previous comments about a Muslim Ban admissible, so... if true, Guiliani will probably get deposed, as well as a lot of his [Trump's] staff-- and he'll lose.

I think we're hearing the death knell of the EO. Back to the drafting table, kiddos.

Those comments are irrelevant because ban doesn't include vast majority of world's muslim population. How is it possible, that it discriminates on basis of religion if 85% muslims are not affected?

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 No Easy-D for Donnie. SAD. Where's all the WINNING?

 

 

/I was told there would be WINNING.

There's some funny trolling on Twitter right now. I've been laughing quite a bit.

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Those comments are irrelevant because ban doesn't include vast majority of world's muslim population. How is it possible, that it discriminates on basis of religion if 85% muslims are not affected?

Ah, so you did read or listen to it-- or did you just google that? It doesn't have to be shown that it effects an entire religion or religious denomination in order for it to be deemed discriminatory. But Noah Purcell can argue this a million times better than I. And now he's likely to get his chance. 

Again, Establishment and Equal Opportunity Clause. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

That's just absurd. Syria was not some rural country dependent on agriculture to that extent. You are not talking about fucking Chad or Mali. Syrian economy was relatively well diversified, not as well, when compared to western countries, but much better than other 3rd world nations.

Sorry, but people who actually research this stuff say you're wrong. And the fertile crescent is kind of well-known for agriculture, being the foundation of human civilization and all that fun. 

It wasn't the economy that got thrown to hell; it was the actual infrastructure. When you have a massive amount of people heading to cities without any kind of employment this causes stresses on the country. What Syria experienced is equivalent to the entire California agriculture industry moving en masse to San Francisco. Imagine 500,000 people moving into a major city, all over 1-2 years. That city in the US would have a hard time - Syria had it worse.

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

There were revolutions over whole ME, even in places where there was no drought. How do you explain that? THe difference is simply that SYrian civil war has no winner, so it is far more bloody.

I don't have to explain that; each has their own cause. The Syrian one, if you'll remember, happened after Libya and Egypt, and a lot of people believe that it was done because they saw success elsewhere. 

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

Foreigners in US HAVE constitutional rights. But while this ban influenced some people who already are in US, it MOSTLY dealt with FUTURE immigration of people OUTSIDE US. At least that part of ban should be immediately upheld without any questioning.

This is categorically false. Over 100,000 people were directly and immediately affected by the ban, which is more than all the refugees and half of the visas we give out combined. And some of those people were not in the US but had the right to be here. 

The other issue is that it doesn't matter about future immigration if it is done based on religious reasons, which has been ruled several times to be unconstitutional. And since Trump happily said over and over how he wanted to ban all muslims, there is ample evidence that this was his motivation regardless of what the stated effect is. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Those comments are irrelevant because ban doesn't include vast majority of world's muslim population. How is it possible, that it discriminates on basis of religion if 85% muslims are not affected?

That isn't accurate. Again, it doesn't matter if it doesn't discriminate against some muslims - if the intent was to discriminate against muslims, then it is unconstitutional. And there is ample evidence that this is the case. 

This is akin to saying that as long as you discriminate against, say, 20% of black people you can't be discriminatory. This is obviously false. If you discriminate against ONE muslim on the basis of their religion you are discriminating based on religion. It doesn't matter if you let others in. 

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

There were revolutions over whole ME, even in places where there was no drought. How do you explain that?

Are you saying a food crisis cannot trigger a conflict then?