Like Tree129Likes

Trump's well intended executive orders/policies

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 10 ... LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    Which again raises the question - Can a US president single handedly continue writing "orders" which break existing laws, treaties and common sense - this one I suspect does not matter in politics, but are their checks and balances to these orders?
    Yes he can. Nothing to stop him except for impeachment.

    But:
    - If they are illegal, they will be challenged and the courts will put a stop to it. You saw it very quickly with the stoppage of the immigration ban this weekend. What trump signed (stopping legal residents at the border) was clearly illegal. It was also ill thought out and not executed very well, made him and his team look ridiculous which you can read more about in that article.

    - The states can resist and can easily ignore since the states (for the most part) control enforcement. eg : I expect he will pass a series of "illegal alien" orders. I expect none of those orders will be enforced in California.
    merchantms likes this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,188
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    So once the judiciary is seeded up to the Supreme Court, with appropriate people, no real challenge can be made?
    Even politically appointed judges have ethical standards and in some cases e.g. Obamacare Republican justices have not followed the party line. Judges have a higher standard. Additionally there are many layers of the judiciary and unlikely in four years to replace all of those who were appointed by previous administrations.
    HowardCoombs likes this.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    Then why start at all with an easily debunked video?

    It's not a Muslim ban, but we'll make exceptions for Christians
    I never see US's 'Muslim ban' a sign of prejudice. I think it's legit cause US fear the repercussions from what they've done in the past.

    That fear is no different from Israelis' disdain for Palestinian or Japan's disdain for "communist" China.

    Banning those 7 countries made sense from US' standpoint. Though it also made sense Australia/Canada/European countries should take those refugees up after some screening. Though I think even they have a preference for Christians. I see that as a sign politician doesn't want to be blamed if anything happens, so they'd rather not take Muslim although the official reason was that ISIS targets Christians.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by merchantms:
    Even politically appointed judges have ethical standards....
    Speaking of which, in case you missed this little cute bit, regarding the well respected but now departed Conservative...

    Scalia opinion on EPA regulations could block Trump's wall

    That tells you the "Build the wall" order is just posturing and utter horseshit. No one is going to build a wall on his say so.
    a) Mexico is not paying
    b) 20% tariff (or other funding initiatives) will require legislative agreement
    c) even if its funded, it will be challenged due to Scalia's legacy.

    So what did the order accomplish besides pissing off 1/2 the electorate and the good neighbor down south? I'm sure it made a few deplorables happy.


  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,967

    I agree, I the wall bit is nonsense however the immigration bit is a bit concerning and the other orders which slice away at trade and economic treaties will surely be the more concerning to me.


    @Creative83 unfortunately the large terrorist training camp and funding countries have been ignored and many have attributed that to the trump business presence in those countries... Delegitimsing the whole terrorist angle or at least diluting it severely.

    @merchantms I unfortunately have a rather cynical view of the politically appointed judiciary. Let's see how the next few months play out.


  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,188

    @shri not saying judges won't ever rule in Trump's favor. Only that it's not a straight line Republican appointed judge = Trump's policies are upheld.

    HowardCoombs likes this.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,967

    I agree it is not a straight line. And thank God for that. Unfortunately too much time and money and uncertainty will be created in between these orders and some of them heading to supreme court.

    Prime opportunities for the fast algo traders.


  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    I agree it is not a straight line. And thank God for that. Unfortunately too much time and money and uncertainty will be created in between these orders and some of them heading to supreme court.
    You should be more worried about the real possibility of war - whether it's a trade war or a territorial war, it should now be clear to any watcher that the clown is not a stable and rational person.

    Prediction markets, in case you want to have some fun with it :
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plu...et/1.129097136
    civil_servant likes this.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,967

    The thing with war is that you need another nut case on the other side. He can do far more damage with these orders in the short term which might make war irrelevant.

    Do need to find a reputable way to bet on some of the UK sites. Should be interesting... Wanted to put some spare change in a trump win and could not.


  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    You should be more worried about the real possibility of war - whether it's a trade war or a territorial war, it should now be clear to any watcher that the clown is not a stable and rational person.

    In terms of the Mexican paying for the wall with its 20% tariff, it seemed irrational & unreasonable at first, but he answered potential critics the same day congress provided the funding.
    So his original intent to build the wall was achieved without much opposition who otherwise would have said those 15 billion was added to the deficit.
    It was never about Mexico's reaction to begin with. It was about how do we answer to the funding and get things started immediately. It made sense Mexico and Trump agreed to stay quiet about the wall after congress provided the funding - cause Trump achieved his purpose already.

    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    @Creative83 unfortunately the large terrorist training camp and funding countries have been ignored and many have attributed that to the trump business presence in those countries... Delegitimsing the whole terrorist angle or at least diluting it severely.
    I'm not as informed about how severe the security issue is with the training camps. I just know US can't offend the Saudis. Think Trump's telephone call to the Saudis was to answer to critics with that perspective in mind.

    I've always believe it's a really stupid move to take in refugees by US, UK or France from certain Middle Eastern countries. I've also always supported the rest of EU, Canada, Australia to take in refugees as long as they've been screened.
    Last edited by Creative83; 30-01-2017 at 03:38 PM.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 10 ... LastLast