Augestein Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Rezzy said: Unfortunately, the Dems shot themselves in the foot in regards to that, since they took away the right to filibuster nominations a few years ago when Obama was in office. They would need at least 3, since a tie would go to Pence. Even then, they might try to filibuster it, since the ban only lasts for 90 days, last I heard. It's a nice symbolic act to limit EOs, but it probably won't get past the House. Ideally, when the Dems regain power, they can introduce a bill to limit a president's power with EOs, but they probably won't, since both parties just want to grab as much power as they can, now, and don't think about how it will come back to bite them later. True, but wasn't pence also saying it was unconstitutional? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 In 2015. Remember that everyone in the Republican Party started sucking off Trump once he won the election, including but not limited to Paul Ryan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Augestein said: True, but wasn't pence also saying it was unconstitutional? He did over a year ago, but I doubt he'd vote against Trump at this point. The last time I can think of a VP going against the President was Andrew Jackson and Calhoun, and that didn't turn out too well for Calhoun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, Rezzy said: Unfortunately, the Dems shot themselves in the foot in regards to that, since they took away the right to filibuster nominations a few years ago when Obama was in office. gop handed them precedent to block any of his nominations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Radiant head said: gop handed them precedent to block any of his nominations. If they had the numbers to do so, the Dems could, but since they won't be able to filibuster, they can't do much at this point, apart from symbolic opposition. They'd need at least 3 Republicans to defect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Rather late, but considering the muslim ban: Apparently a bunch of people (at least in YouTube comments and the newspaper I got today) are saying that Trump should have banned Saudi Arabia instead, because it apparently funds terrorists (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Apparently they also say they didn't ban it because they get oil from it. What do you guys think about this? Also, regarding Pakistan, it's possible it could be banned as well (has it been already banned...? I dunno, I'm not too up to date with news lately). While I'm fine with Saudi Arabia getting banned, I find banning Pakistan not too great of a choice. I guess it's just me being from the country. Although when considering the secret phone calls or whatever between Trump and Nawaz Sharif, which was likely talks of staying on friendly terms, I think, banning Pakistan feels unnecessary, and a sort of betrayal by Trump to Nawaz Sharif. Do correct me if I'm wrong on some information. And yes, the ban only brings more opportunities for Muslims becoming extremists and terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Pakistan is not banned. It's 7 specific countries in the middle east - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and I would be fucking terrified if I were in one of those countries considering the Trump administration just killed around 30 women and children in Yemen. People were calling for Saudi's ban because they are funding terrorism. The issue is that the US is always flaky with the Saudis due to, yes, oil money. Pakistan and a bunch of other Muslim majority countries are untouched for now, presumably due to business interests or lack of terrorist activities (the latter being a complete fucking lie in Pakistan considering their government has blood on their hands). EDIT: Would like the clarify that the primary issue with the ban is that people with visas overseas can't actually make it into the country. It is basically banning legal citizens from making their way in, which is what the protests were all about. Obama has done similar measures to ensure that they could temporarily suspend appointments for 90 days so they could draft an immigration policy, but he also grandfathered in previous visa holders. Also, it is a Muslim ban no matter what euphemism anyone tries to tell you. Rudy Giuliani spilled the beans on it being the "legal" version of a Muslim ban. EDIT 2: It also has the really dumb side effect of banning certain people who have never set foot in the country they banned due to naturalized citizenship that you cannot opt out of. If you were born in Western Europe but your parents are from Iran, you're a naturalized Iranian citizen, and despite never having set foot in Iran you can never come to the US. That is another facet of the executive order that has come under heavy scrutiny. Edited January 30, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Well, it's sad they're banning even the legal citizens. Banning the refugees and illegal immigrants is enough, in my opinion. After all people complain about them mostly, especially in Europe. EDIT: So apparently any reply after this comment, I cannot see for some reason. Despite this, I'm still getting notifications for this thread. EDIT2: Now I can see the replies again. Awesome. Edited January 30, 2017 by Flee Fleet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 16 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said: Rather late, but considering the muslim ban: Apparently a bunch of people (at least in YouTube comments and the newspaper I got today) are saying that Trump should have banned Saudi Arabia instead, because it apparently funds terrorists (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Apparently they also say they didn't ban it because they get oil from it. What do you guys think about this? Also, regarding Pakistan, it's possible it could be banned as well (has it been already banned...? I dunno, I'm not too up to date with news lately). While I'm fine with Saudi Arabia getting banned, I find banning Pakistan not too great of a choice. I guess it's just me being from the country. Although when considering the secret phone calls or whatever between Trump and Nawaz Sharif, which was likely talks of staying on friendly terms, I think, banning Pakistan feels unnecessary, and a sort of betrayal by Trump to Nawaz Sharif. Do correct me if I'm wrong on some information. And yes, the ban only brings more opportunities for Muslims becoming extremists and terrorists. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are unlikely to be included, since the US still nominally considers them allies. Pres Obama was reluctant to allow citizens to sue the Saudis for being being 9/11, since he did not want to hurt relations with them. It may be hypocritical, but the US at least tries to keep some allies in the region, even if they are tenuous alliances, including them in the ban would likely alienate them. The nations included in the ban are mostly nations that the US already had little to no diplomatic cooperation with already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Well, Priebus did say that that it could be extended to Pakistan: “You can point to other countries that have similar problems like Pakistan and others - perhaps we need to take it further,” said Priebus. If the US actually cared about stopping terrorism fervently like they've claimed to over the last twenty or more years they wouldn't be allied with fucking Saudi Arabia just because it's profitable. Saudi Arabia is a fucking rogue state. They've used chemical weapons in Yemen, they don't give a shit if civilians die, and in their own nation being an atheist is considered to be a terrorist, and they execute people for witchcraft and sorcery. Still, while I'm horrified at the civilian casualties in the first Trump US raid in Yemen (why are the US in Yemen?), Obama has also contributed a massive amount of deaths through his drone strikes. It's been like this for a while and nobody seems to see the moral confusion that America has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I read they have the Quebec Mosque shooter in custody. Originally they had said it was 2-3 shooters, but now they claim it's only one. They had arrested a second guy, but now say he was just a witness. 26 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said: EDIT: So apparently any reply after this comment, I cannot see for some reason. Despite this, I'm still getting notifications for this thread. They know about the issue. Eclipse said we'll just have to wait until they fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 51 minutes ago, Rezzy said: If they had the numbers to do so, the Dems could, but since they won't be able to filibuster, they can't do much at this point, apart from symbolic opposition. They'd need at least 3 Republicans to defect. can you cite your sources here? trump's pick needs 60 votes in the senate, and there are at least 41 dems in the senate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 26 minutes ago, Rezzy said: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are unlikely to be included, since the US still nominally considers them allies. Pres Obama was reluctant to allow citizens to sue the Saudis for being being 9/11, since he did not want to hurt relations with them. It may be hypocritical, but the US at least tries to keep some allies in the region, even if they are tenuous alliances, including them in the ban would likely alienate them. The nations included in the ban are mostly nations that the US already had little to no diplomatic cooperation with already. I'm more surprised that Trump agreed not to get them banned. Hypocritical and unlikely of him, really. I guess he noticed the benefits. Still, Saudi Arabia should have been banned, especially considering this ban is to counter terrorism. This is really hypocritical of the US to be honest. 4 minutes ago, Rezzy said: I read they have the Quebec Mosque shooter in custody. Originally they had said it was 2-3 shooters, but now they claim it's only one. They had arrested a second guy, but now say he was just a witness. They know about the issue. Eclipse said we'll just have to wait until they fix it. Fun fact: a guy on Youtube told me the shooting was occured by Muslims themselves. Sure, this isn't important information, but the fact some people are claiming it is weird enough, considering news site didn't say anything about the religion of the suspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 24 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said: Apparently a bunch of people (at least in YouTube comments and the newspaper I got today) are saying that Trump should have banned Saudi Arabia instead, because it apparently funds terrorists (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Apparently they also say they didn't ban it because they get oil from it. What do you guys think about this? Starting with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, over Al-Quaeda - a terrorist group founded by Saudi citizen Osama bin Ladin - and to the Islamic State the Saud Kingdom has supported, and indeed still does support, several terrorist organizations with money, arms and ideology. One of KSA's most influential imams was even quoted saying that their ideology was the same as the Islamic State's, the only difference is that they disagree with their way of spreading it through violence. This attitude can be seen mirrored very clearly in the societies of countries that turned away from a rather secular outlook to a much more extreme kind of religious conservativism - Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are the most prominent examples of countries that have undergone a strong islamification of their society under the influence of Saudi-funded missionaries and preachers over the last decades. Right now similar tendiencies can be observed in certain areas of Malaysia, Indonesia and -worse still- in Bosnia which after the war in the 90s was completely left to rot by the EU. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia started to fill the idological vacuum in the area by building salafist mosques - reports from people in my circle of acquaintances that have bosnian roots have it that there are areas in Bosnia where women can no longer walk the streets without wearin a hijab. I can't personally confirm this claim though. It's generally worth pointing out that the countries in the ban-list don't have particularly strong affiliations to international terrorist groups except in Lybia's case, which is entirely the west's fault. Iran, for example, is often claimed to be one of the main exporters of terror yet none of the many terrorist attacks carried out by radical islamists since 9/11 is the work of an iranian citizen. Iran also directly combats IS in Iraq and is one of Al-Quada's sworn enemies. The terrorist groups supported by Iran - Hamas and Hizbollah - are not international players and have overall very limited influence and power. This stands in stark contrast to Saudi Arabia who provided 15 [!!!] of the 19 terrorists that carried out the 9/11 terror attak. These contradictions in the relationships between the USA and Saudi-Arabia are well known among people who concern themselves with geopolitics and contemporary history. The USA's utter dependancy on oil forced them into this contradictory position where they had to pretend to be completely blind towards the Kingdom's ambitions. Some of the things Trump said during the electoral campaing raised hope that he'd continue Obama's more distant policies towads KSA but the Kingdom's absence on the ban-list renders that hope obsolete. 16 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: It also has the really dumb side effect of banning certain people who have never set foot in the country they banned due to naturalized citizenship that you cannot opt out of. If you were born in Western Europe but your parents are from Iran, you're a naturalized Iranian citizen, and despite never having set foot in Iran you can never come to the US. That is another facet of the executive order that has come under heavy scrutiny. From what I could gather this already started to have quite an effect, even on the gaming community. The well-known dutch smash 4 pro player Mr r, who is of iranian heritage, is said to no longer be allowed to enter the states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 From what I could gather this already started to have quite an effect, even on the gaming community. The well-known dutch smash 4 pro player Mr r, who is of iranian heritage, is said to no longer be allowed to enter the states. That is actually the exact example I had in mind, but it's also having an effect on doctors and people in academia. It is a terrible order and supposedly Bannon was the one who forced the "green card" provision in, the DHS was originally not planning on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Quote reports from people in my circle of acquaintances that have bosnian roots have it that there are areas in Bosnia where women can no longer walk the streets without wearin a hijab. This is already a thing in Saudi Arabia, and of course, it's shameful. Especially when even Pakistan doesn't go to that extreme nor has girls pay fine for not wearing the Hijab. And this is considering how mostly Pakistan is considered to be the most devout to Islam (majority of people that is, or so I've heard). Great job Saudi. I knew your imams and ulama were shit (sorry for the word, but it needed to be used). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, Radiant head said: can you cite your sources here? trump's pick needs 60 votes in the senate, and there are at least 41 dems in the senate The Democrats voted to take away Republicans' right to filibuster Obama's nominees in the Senate a few years ago, commonly known as the nuclear option. 21 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said: Fun fact: a guy on Youtube told me the shooting was occured by Muslims themselves. Sure, this isn't important information, but the fact some people are claiming it is weird enough, considering news site didn't say anything about the religion of the suspects. One of the men arrested was of Moroccan decent, and there were reports that one of the shooters yelled :Allahu Akbar" during the shooting. We should hopefully get the full story as time goes on. Some reports are saying that the Moroccan was just a witness and the suspect is French Canadian, although those are leaks and they have not yet been officially confirmed, so it's premature to say one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said: This is already a thing in Saudi Arabia [...] "Already"? This has been the case ever since the Saud clan allied up with the wahhabites in the 18th century to take over the arabian peninsula! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Lord Raven said: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ Yeah the Judicial Branch is definitely there. The writer is pretty high. (/late) It wasn't when I linked the article. Likely site maintenance so there was no need for me to cry wolf, but tbh I feel like my suspicion was justified given the last few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mimikyu said: It wasn't when I linked the article. Likely site maintenance so there was no need for me to cry wolf, but tbh I feel like my suspicion was justified given the last few days. The whole site has been getting rebuilt since Trump took office. They basically took down everything and have been gradually readding stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mimikyu said: It wasn't when I linked the article. Likely site maintenance so there was no need for me to cry wolf, but tbh I feel like my suspicion was justified given the last few days. https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/legislative-branch it doesn't exist here but https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch the page still exists I don't blame you at all, though, because it changed on me again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I know a couple of us have mentioned it here but I feel as if Bannon's current position and influence over Trump is receiving very little chatter. Anti-LGBTQ EO likely coming very soon (I see no reason to disbelieve it, especially as Trump has voiced support for FADA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 49 minutes ago, Rezzy said: The Democrats voted to take away Republicans' right to filibuster Obama's nominees in the Senate a few years ago, commonly known as the nuclear option. still needs 60 votes though,not sure you're even reading my posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 16 minutes ago, Res said: I know a couple of us have mentioned it here but I feel as if Bannon's current position and influence over Trump is receiving very little chatter. I posted it on facebook and Res' article is simply the most concerning thing ever. I don't give a fuck if Pence resets LGBTQ rights to 2008 levels (as much as it pains me to say that), that is actually reversible - I would much rather have that than a military dictatorship based on propaganda. I am among those people that believe that they're trying to get a terrorist attack to be able to assume total control - the likes of which makes the Patriot Act look like anarchy. Bannon is a straight up Neo-Nazi whose influence will fuck us over, because he's undoubtedly playing Trump like a fiddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Freyjadour said: Anyone who voted or supported Trump is complicit, anyone who voted third party is complicit. I've stayed away from this topic, but I've been heavily involved on Twitter, and now this is my breaking point. I hated the Muslim ban, I tweeted about it this weekend? But this! This supposed upcoming EO makes life ten times worse, why even live anymore? i repeat: you are complicit. You have ruined mine and so many other people's lives, and there will be no forgiveness. You should channel your anger to something more productive like protests and awareness instead of being petty and venting. The third party voters here voted in blue states. The majority of Trump supporters here voted in Texas, Maryland (a blue state), or NC (that one you will need to address that particular user on) and some of the others were European. Nothing they did affected you. You're not the only one on the chopping block here, by the way. Edited January 30, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.