The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

No, I mean like this. This is a true story involving relatives. I was directly involved.
At a holiday gathering about 10? or so years ago, the topic of conversation turned towards WWII. As kids are known to do. one kid pipes up, saying that they learned about that in school.
It turned out that this 8th grade student was taught a weird version of history. She had been taught that the US had been the aggressor in the Japan/US theater of WWII. She had been taught that the US was the only nation to have used nukes against an enemy. She knew all about Hiroshima & Nagasaki, but with a "US as the bad guy" tilt to it.

I asked her if she knew how the US was drawn into the war. She didn't know. I tried to prompt her, asking if she had ever heard of Pearl Harbor. Of course, she had. As a Movie. She didn't know it was a real life event.

This kid was a straight A student. She knew what they taught. By this time, the parents realized something was rotten in Denmark and took over, as was proper.

That's an example of what I would consider revisionist history.

As someone who has actually taught that subject...I haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Such specific responses tend to indicate personal experience............

As apposed to all of my other posts? What are you talking about?

[Gatefan1976]

As apposed to all of my other posts? What are you talking about?

Not you Tood, Annoyed and his position on Abortion.

[aretood2]

Not you Tood, Annoyed and his position on Abortion.

Okay, I must say you threw me off there for a second.

[jelgate]

Let's abort the Tood clones

[aretood2]

Let's abort your face!

[jelgate]

I have evolved beyond faces

[Gatefan1976]

Okay, I must say you threw me off there for a second.

Don't blame me for your clone replication errors.

[jelgate]

Don't blame me for your clone replication errors.

He should blame Annoyed

[Coco Pops]

So cutting funding to science and the arts, and education.

The obvious agenda is a dumbed down population. Can it get any dumber?

[Gatefan1976]

I have evolved beyond faces

You misspelled faeces.

[Gatefan1976]

Link for trump budget:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...18-Budget.html

[Annoyed]

As someone who has actually taught that subject...I haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Didn't match up to the history I was taught, either. Turned out the kid's teacher wasn't quite following the curriculum.
This kind of thing is not exactly unheard of these days.
But that is an example of what I mean by revisionist history.

[Gatefan1976]

Didn't match up to the history I was taught, either. Turned out the kid's teacher wasn't quite following the curriculum.
This kind of thing is not exactly unheard of these days.
But that is an example of what I mean by revisionist history.

So, as usual, you get one example and paint the entire teaching profession as failures, -even though- you admit that the teacher was not following the curriculum and -then- blame the system.
Right.............

[garhkal]

Me thinks someone doesn't know how checks and balances work.

Checks and balances means one side of the 3 is no more powerful than the other. BUT when the judicial is ruling like this, they are in essence SAYING that their idea of what laws should be is more important than what the Legisltive (or executive) is.. AND SINCE the constitution DOES GIVE the EB the power to mark certain people as not visa allowed, THEIR saying its unconstitutional is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION witht he constitution.

ALSO its rather hammy that not even 2 hours after the trial ended, he managed to crank out the 43 page document detailing his reasonings. AND RIGHT AFTER Obama made a visit TO Hawaii..

If that were true, there would be no case.
There is a case, your understanding is wrong.
This is a yes/no situation.


No, you have stated your opinion over and over again, and have been proven wrong.

Then you obviously have not been looking in the right spots. Check out this link..
https://www.law360.com/articles/8855...igrants-report

Relevant text..

Section 212(f) of the INA, which states that the president has the authority to suspend the entry of all foreigners or class of foreigners or to impose on their entry any restrictions the president sees fit when he or she finds that their entry to the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the country.

Sure as hell seems concrete to me.

Then check out
http://myattorneyusa.com/scope-and-h...y-proclamation

Says almost exactly the same thing..
AND since one of the reasonings the judge used to say this EO was illegal, was that it infringes on their 1st amendment rights for religious freedom. EXACTLY HOW THE HELL does someone in ANOTHER COUNTRY get protected by OUR Constitution when they are not even US CITIZENS???

You realise that during the height of the slave trade, the US was a colony, right?

Yes i DO gatefan. BUT i am pointing out to many who do feel that the US is guilty of bringing/shipping IN those slaves, are wrong in that matter.. YET THEY never seem to acknowledge that..

No you haven't and no it doesn't. It allows the president to block specific groups who actively seek to cause harm. "Them Muslims over there" does not qualify. He could block members of ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban etc...but not the entire population of a country.

AND without knowing who the hell those people are/vettng those coming in to ensure they are not part OF Those groups, EXACTLY How the hell would trump block 'those specific groups"??

[Gatefan1976]

Checks and balances means one side of the 3 is no more powerful than the other. BUT when the judicial is ruling like this, they are in essence SAYING that their idea of what laws should be is more important than what the Legisltive (or executive) is.. AND SINCE the constitution DOES GIVE the EB the power to mark certain people as not visa allowed, THEIR saying its unconstitutional is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION witht he constitution.

Read the constitution.
Not the extended law around it, the actual FRIKKING CONSTITUTION
The constitution does not, in any way allow the president to ban a country on "reasons", it requires concrete proof for him to exercise that power. What is trumps reason?

ALSO its rather hammy that not even 2 hours after the trial ended, he managed to crank out the 43 page document detailing his reasonings. AND RIGHT AFTER Obama made a visit TO Hawaii..

What?

Then you obviously have not been looking in the right spots. Check out this link..
https://www.law360.com/articles/8855...igrants-report

Relevant text..


Sure as hell seems concrete to me.

He needs REASONS to exercise that -listen carefully- NON CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL POWER. The Law permits him to do it, yes, if he has a good reason to override the -actual- constitution which actually denies the president the right to do it.
He needs a solid reason, and the only reason he has so far is "they are Muslims", and in the latest block, they used his own damn words to prove that was his reasoning, which actually IS unconstitutional, which is why he has lost twice.

Then check out
http://myattorneyusa.com/scope-and-h...y-proclamation

Says almost exactly the same thing..
AND since one of the reasonings the judge used to say this EO was illegal, was that it infringes on their 1st amendment rights for religious freedom. EXACTLY HOW THE HELL does someone in ANOTHER COUNTRY get protected by OUR Constitution when they are not even US CITIZENS???

please read your constitution.

Yes i DO gatefan. BUT i am pointing out to many who do feel that the US is guilty of bringing/shipping IN those slaves, are wrong in that matter.. YET THEY never seem to acknowledge that..

The people of the US wanted slaves, they had no ships or infrastructure to get slaves, so the GOVERNMENT of the US (which was England) brought in slaves. What's next, Americans did not kill natives, that was the English?

AND without knowing who the hell those people are/vettng those coming in to ensure they are not part OF Those groups, EXACTLY How the hell would trump block 'those specific groups"??

Well, if trump listened to the intelligence community rather than dumping on it and not bothering to read the briefs, he might have a clue.............