Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Our New President - President Donald Trump

Page 44 of 214 [ 3415 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 214  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Feb 2017, 9:17 pm

The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed under Jefferson.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Feb 2017, 9:19 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Trump loses on Immigration, but he already tweeted that he's "going to see them in court!"
They are saying the judge was wrong in his ruling and he didn't have the power to override the President according to the Constitution.
More to come.......

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... -sprint-us

They're saying they are in uncharted territory.... What a drama! :mrgreen:


UPDATE: Trump will have his decision in the next week on what comes next!


As long as there's any hint of Trump banning people because of religion or ethnicity, it's unconstitutional.


Nope, wasn't even unconstitutional when FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

One of the oldest laws on the books

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

Quote:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

Do we really want to subject people to that again? Apparently later on the government paid them restitution later,I'd call that an admission of guilt.They were citizens of the US and were treated like traitors,but they had done nothing to warrant this except for being a different race.George Takai was interned here in Arkansas when he was a child.I bet he was a big threat to national security. :roll:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Feb 2017, 9:27 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed under Jefferson.


They weren't repealed, part of it expired but the Enemy Aliens Act remains on the books. This was the authority that FDR used to intern Japanese citizens during WWII which agree or disagree with have never been found unconstitutional.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

09 Feb 2017, 9:28 pm

EzraS wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
So you're fine with peoples prevented taking refuge in your country simply for being citizens of the wrong countries? I wouldn't have figured you supporting something so heartless.


The problem is with the wrong countries being wrong countries. They need to be made into right countries, rather than leaving them as they are. Why aren't refugee camps being set up at home in Syria, instead of these people having to flee from their homeland? Why aren't all these countries taking in refugees, pitching in to make Syria a better and safer place so its citizens don't have to flee from it? Just taking in refugees instead of taking care of the situation on the home front, isn't ever going to make the situation any better, it's just going to perpetuate it.

Easy to say... The war in Syria was started because some peoples manifested for a better country, look how that turned. For Syria to become a "right country" they would need another government allowing more freedom, but Russia want to keep the current government as they are allies and allow them better control on the region and it's resources, and as Russia is a permanent member of UN security council they were is no UN intervention. International politic is complicated and make it so that the problems of many countries can't be easily solved. As for national politic, you can't make your country better if those making it worse are better in marketing; thus Trump, who is good at marketing himself among many peoples, is elected and will make his country worse.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Feb 2017, 9:43 pm

Tollorin wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
So you're fine with peoples prevented taking refuge in your country simply for being citizens of the wrong countries? I wouldn't have figured you supporting something so heartless.


The problem is with the wrong countries being wrong countries. They need to be made into right countries, rather than leaving them as they are. Why aren't refugee camps being set up at home in Syria, instead of these people having to flee from their homeland? Why aren't all these countries taking in refugees, pitching in to make Syria a better and safer place so its citizens don't have to flee from it? Just taking in refugees instead of taking care of the situation on the home front, isn't ever going to make the situation any better, it's just going to perpetuate it.

Easy to say... The war in Syria was started because some peoples manifested for a better country, look how that turned. For Syria to become a "right country" they would need another government allowing more freedom, but Russia want to keep the current government as they are allies and allow them better control on the region and it's resources, and as Russia is a permanent member of UN security council they were is no UN intervention. International politic is complicated and make it so that the problems of many countries can't be easily solved. As for national politic, you can't make your country better if those making it worse are better in marketing; thus Trump, who is good at marketing himself among many peoples, is elected and will make his country worse.


Without Russia, ISIS would be on the doorstep of Israel and Lebanon

The Obama administration was effectively allied with ISIS in Syria



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

09 Feb 2017, 9:58 pm

Your feel-good story of the day. (Indictments from Berkeley should be next.)

Grand jury indicts 146 more people on felony rioting charges from Inauguration Day

WASHINGTON (ABC7) — A grand jury indicted 146 more people on Wednesday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on felony rioting charges in connection with Inauguration Day.

A press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. says the 146 people were facing charges relating to incidents that occurred in the four-block area from the intersection of 13th and O Street NW to the intersection of 12th and L Street NW on January 20.

Of the 230 people arrested and charged with felony rioting connected with Inauguration Day, 209 have now been indicted.

http://wjla.com/news/local/dc-court-ind ... ration-day

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Feb 2017, 10:28 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Trump loses on Immigration, but he already tweeted that he's "going to see them in court!"
They are saying the judge was wrong in his ruling and he didn't have the power to override the President according to the Constitution.
More to come.......

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... -sprint-us

They're saying they are in uncharted territory.... What a drama! :mrgreen:


UPDATE: Trump will have his decision in the next week on what comes next!


As long as there's any hint of Trump banning people because of religion or ethnicity, it's unconstitutional.


Nope, wasn't even unconstitutional when FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

One of the oldest laws on the books

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

Quote:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

Do we really want to subject people to that again? Apparently later on the government paid them restitution later,I'd call that an admission of guilt.They were citizens of the US and were treated like traitors,but they had done nothing to warrant this except for being a different race.George Takai was interned here in Arkansas when he was a child.I bet he was a big threat to national security. :roll:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp

Sigh...
I don't think anyone is pushing for rounding up US citizens and putting them in camps.
We can keep people from hostile nations/regions out.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that terrorist cells could be embedded in with "refugees".


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Feb 2017, 11:06 pm

Raptor wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Trump loses on Immigration, but he already tweeted that he's "going to see them in court!"
They are saying the judge was wrong in his ruling and he didn't have the power to override the President according to the Constitution.
More to come.......

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... -sprint-us

They're saying they are in uncharted territory.... What a drama! :mrgreen:


UPDATE: Trump will have his decision in the next week on what comes next!


As long as there's any hint of Trump banning people because of religion or ethnicity, it's unconstitutional.


Nope, wasn't even unconstitutional when FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

One of the oldest laws on the books

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

Quote:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

Do we really want to subject people to that again? Apparently later on the government paid them restitution later,I'd call that an admission of guilt.They were citizens of the US and were treated like traitors,but they had done nothing to warrant this except for being a different race.George Takai was interned here in Arkansas when he was a child.I bet he was a big threat to national security. :roll:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp

Sigh...
I don't think anyone is pushing for rounding up US citizens and putting them in camps.
We can keep people from hostile nations/regions out.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that terrorist cells could be embedded in with "refugees".

Then why not a ban on travel from Saudi Arabia?That's where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from.Oh wait,they have all that oil.And money.I guess we don't want poor Muslims.
When the Shah of Iran was deposed by the Ayatollah we took in refugees.They most likely would have been killed if we didn't.None of these immigrants ever caused any trouble that I'm aware of.I went to school with a girl from Iran,her family were very nice people.I just have to wonder if the people supporting this have ever been friends or even know someone that's Muslim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Americans


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

09 Feb 2017, 11:42 pm

I think Gorsuch should be out. He can't be trusted.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,734
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Feb 2017, 11:46 pm

nurseangela wrote:
I think Gorsuch should be out. He can't be trusted.


Because he was critical of Trump regarding the Seattle judge's ruling?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

09 Feb 2017, 11:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
I think Gorsuch should be out. He can't be trusted.


Because he was critical of Trump regarding the Seattle judge's ruling?


He was in an interview with a Democrat and talking bad about his boss. You think that is OK? It's that how you would treat your boss that just hired you? He should have refused to answer the question.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Feb 2017, 11:53 pm

I like the fact that Gorsuch spoke out for an independent judiciary. Which means he'll vote his conscience, not the party line.

We don't want to believe that Trump is trying to put judges in his pocket.



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

09 Feb 2017, 11:55 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I like the fact that Gorsuch spoke out for an independent judiciary. Which means he'll vote his conscience, not the party line.

We don't want to believe that Trump is trying to put judges in his pocket.


You only like it because Gorsuch spoke in your favor putting Trump down.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

10 Feb 2017, 12:05 am

There are crooked judges just like there are immoral people in any job. Trump was just calling it like it is. Gorsuch got offended. I've been offended by my employers lots of times, but you don't talk bad about your boss in an interview - especially with the other side. Gorsuch needs to go. I tweeted Trump that Gorsuch can't be trusted - I know he'll listen to me. :mrgreen:


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... -sprint-us


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

10 Feb 2017, 12:08 am

/\Would you prefer him to be a brown noser?


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


the_phoenix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,489
Location: up from the ashes

10 Feb 2017, 12:44 am

nurseangela wrote:
I think Gorsuch should be out. He can't be trusted.


Is this what you're referring to?

“Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear, in all of his discussions with Senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on specific cases and that judicial ethics preclude him from commenting on political matters.

"He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary; and while he made clear that he was not referencing any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing.”

~ Kelly Ayotte

If this is what you're referring to, I'd say, let's give Gorsuch a chance.
Or are you referring to something else?