The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Speaking of, trump violated the constitution by bypassing the senate to appoint him.

Is that confirmed?

And if so, does it actually... changes anything?

From a legal point of view, you might have a point here, although "acting" might be a legal workaround.

From a practical standpoint, it matters little 'cause the Republicans hold the Senate.

[Annoyed]

In what world is CNN the far left? That is just intellectually lazy to the point of idiocy. Have you not seen MSNBC? Have you not read vox.com articles? Good Lord, do you just lap up anything your messiah says and take it as fact?

This one? Don't you recall how they were dubbed "The Clinton News Network" during the 2016 campaign?

[Gatefan1976]

From a legal point of view, you might have a point here, although "acting" might be a legal workaround.

From a practical standpoint, it matters little 'cause the Republicans hold the Senate.

In other words, the law, nor the constitution matter to you, only a result you agree with.
THAT is why you are a trump flunkie.
And you want to stack the branch of government you view as the most important with other flunkies who neither care about the law, or the constitution under the guise of "originalists"?
You have the excuse of not knowing the law, what is theirs?

[Gatefan1976]

This one? Don't you recall how they were dubbed "The Clinton News Network" during the 2016 campaign?

Cause that makes it real??

[jelgate]

Their is fake and their is what Trump says in Annoyed's mjnd

[Chaka-Z0]

outrageous & disgraceful behaviour for a mayor

Spoiler:

did he at least share?

I remember clearly when these videos of him puffing crack were leaked on the news, was unreal. He was like a good version of Mr. Fisk, a waste of a man though.

[Chaka-Z0]

Their is fake and their is what Trump says in Annoyed's mjnd

Billy-Bobs love Trump because he has the real truth, the one truth the elites DO NOT want you to know. I want to believe. Logic is irrelevant in Trump-City.

*X-files music fades away*

[Annoyed]

In other words, the law, nor the constitution matter to you, only a result you agree with.
THAT is why you are a trump flunkie.
And you want to stack the branch of government you view as the most important with other flunkies who neither care about the law, or the constitution under the guise of "originalists"?
You have the excuse of not knowing the law, what is theirs?

Don't you think the Senate will confirm Whitaker? I think we both know they will. So in the end, as a practical matter, it makes no difference.

As to the legal end of it, I believe the executive is allowed to make an interim choice pending submission to and approval by the Senate for this office, which is why he is Acting Attorney General at this time.

If there is a legitimate legal challenge, I'm certain someone will pursue it, so we shall see.

[Gatefan1976]

Don't you think the Senate will confirm Whitaker? I think we both know they will. So in the end, as a practical matter, it makes no difference.

It makes every difference in the world.
The fact you don't recognize that is the issue.

As to the legal end of it, I believe the executive is allowed to make an interim choice pending submission to and approval by the Senate for this office, which is why he is Acting Attorney General at this time.

You believe wrongly.

If there is a legitimate legal challenge, I'm certain someone will pursue it, so we shall see.

You mean call it a witch hunt or fake news?

[Coco Pops]

Midterms are over now
No mention of the caravan.

Could it be? Noooooooo they used that to gain votes?

Say it ain't so?

[Annoyed]

Midterms are over now
No mention of the caravan.

Could it be? Noooooooo they used that to gain votes?

Say it ain't so?

Eh? Story was posted 18 min. ago as of this time.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/migran...h-to-us-border

And on the topic...

Note two things about the definition of Asylum cited below.

1: The person for whom asylum is established has no legal right to demand it, and the sheltering state has no obligation to grant it.
2: The reason for asylum is to allow escape from the originating nation's governments persecution of the individual. It does NOT state that poor economic conditions/opportunities within the originating nation is a valid cause.

So, what makes the folks who make up these caravans think they should have any expectation whatsoever of being allowed into this country at all. let alone granted asylum? They don't qualify for the status.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/asylum

Asylum, in international law, the protection granted by a state to a foreign citizen against his own state. The person for whom asylum is established has no legal right to demand it, and the sheltering state has no obligation to grant it.

The right of asylum falls into three basic categories: territorial, extraterritorial, and neutral. Territorial asylum is granted within the territorial bounds of the state offering asylum and is an exception to the practice of extradition. It is designed and employed primarily for the protection of persons accused of political offenses such as treason, desertion, sedition, and espionage. It has become a widespread practice, however, to exclude from this category persons accused of the murder of a head of state, certain terrorist acts, collaboration with the enemy in time of war, crimes against peace and against humanity, and war crimes. Extraterritorial asylum refers to asylum granted in embassies, legations, consulates, warships, and merchant vessels in foreign territory and is thus granted within the territory of the state from which protection is sought. Cases of extraterritorial asylum granted in embassies, legations, or consulates (generally known as diplomatic asylum) are often occasions for dispute. For example, after an unsuccessful uprising against the communist government of Hungary in 1956, the United States controversially granted diplomatic asylum to dissident Hungarian Roman Catholic József Cardinal Mindszenty, who was given refuge in the U.S. embassy and remained there for 15 years. Neutral asylum is employed by states exercising neutrality during a war to offer asylum within its territory to troops of belligerent states, provided that the troops submit to internment for the duration of the war.

It is the right of a state to grant asylum to an individual, but it is not the right of an individual to be granted asylum by a state. This perspective is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which, though recognizing (article 14) the right “to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution,” does not explicitly provide a right of asylum. The original draft of that article, which referred to the individual’s right “to seek and to be granted asylum from persecution,” would have afforded more protection to asylum seekers. Similarly recognizing that “the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries,” the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons in 1951, did not create a right of asylum for those seeking it, and the impressive array of rights it enumerates pertains only to those refugees “lawfully in” or “lawfully staying in” the sheltering state. Subsequent unsuccessful efforts to articulate an individual’s right of asylum included: (1) the UN General Assembly Declaration on Territorial Asylum (1967), which contained substantive exceptions to its non-refoulement (non-return) provision (pertaining to national security and to the safeguarding of its national population), and (2) a proposed Convention on Territorial Asylum, which never materialized.

In ancient times asylum designated a place of sanctuary or protection from which a person could not be removed forcibly without sacrilege. Later it came to signify an institution for the protection or relief of some class of destitute or otherwise unfortunate persons; its most common uses in this sense were in orphan asylum and insane asylum. See also safe-conduct.

[Chaka-Z0]

Sh*t happens when your pawns don't act as expected. Historically the US has been constantly involved in regime changes in SA but Trumpers are unwilling to accept responsibility and let refugees in. The US used to fight for freedom, not solely their own but humanity as a whole. Now look at what you've become, cowards.

[Coco Pops]

Sh*t happens when your pawns don't act as expected. Historically the US has been constantly involved in regime changes in SA but Trumpers are unwilling to accept responsibility and let refugees in. The US used to fight for freedom, not solely their own but humanity as a whole. Now look at what you've become, cowards.

History the USA has meddled in other countries for their own benefit. They're no different to the bad guys they castigate.

[jelgate]

If you want to go down that road, European countries are really no better in meddling

[Annoyed]

Sh*t happens when your pawns don't act as expected. Historically the US has been constantly involved in regime changes in SA but Trumpers are unwilling to accept responsibility and let refugees in. The US used to fight for freedom, not solely their own but humanity as a whole. Now look at what you've become, cowards.

Just because we help overthrow some dictator doesn't make us responsible for the care, feeding and health care for the entire country till the end of time.
And maybe we're coming to our senses.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-I...ive-Households

In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

When did they rewrite “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” to read: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to freeload off the taxpayer” ?