Well Al Qaeda and ISIS arent really that fond of each other to begin with. So theres not much of an alliance there.
And if the US eliminates Assad, who will the country be turned over to? Without massive occupation I think ISIS would take parts of Syria and Al Qaeda would take other parts.
I agree with that. Assad or ISIS? ISIS or Assad? Which is why I was so initially upset about the strike before learning the details. Let the two sides fight it out, but leave the civilians out of it. We'll deal with the winner.
It's interesting the legacy of WWII has had on the region. Seems like the people there are intent on redrawing countries instead of following the lines the victors made after the war.
Does it make sense to pressure the NORKs? Is this a strategy to pressure the Chinese into a more favorable economic policy? Is there any value in military action with the NORKS?
So now that the supreme court is set, what are the chances they overturn the travel ban? I don't care all that much about the ban, but I don't see the justification for blocking it. It seems like some judges are just reading their personal beliefs into the law and ruling however the fuck they feel like these days. In other news I think I've lost all respect for Bill Maher. You don't like Trump? Sure, I can understand that, but rambling on about literally Hitler and blah blah blah is just embarrassing. He's also STILL trying to pretend Hillary was totally clean and it was all just lies made up about her. Sigh. It's too bad because I miss non-hysterical Maher who didn't latch onto any absurd neoliberal talking point.
I doubt they overturn it. There's precedence. Article quote: Sounds good to me. Anyway, I have problems with Gorsuch being on the bench. The only reason why he is was due to political bullshittery. That a fucking justice can be confirmed with a simple majority now is unconscionable. There was a reason why rules were put into place to make something as important as confirming a Supreme Court justice hard to pass. Rolling them back because you'll be dead by the time it can affect you is selfish and shortsighted. Mitch McConnell has done more to divide and ruin not only the Republican Party, but the country in general. Fuck that guy forever.
Oh really? Here's the statute that gives the president the authority to do the ban: Looks pretty fucking clear to me. Here's the establishment clause: Using that as a justification is stupid for several reasons: - It's an executive order, not a law. - The establishment clause has nothing to do with immigration. - The establishment clause only applies to American citizens anyway. - It wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a ban on a handful of countries that happen to be predominantly Muslim. - Plenty of Muslims can still travel to the United States Basically what you and other people are advocating for is that judges just make up laws on a whim if they don't like what another branch is doing, and that is fucking ridiculous to me. And again, I don't care about the travel ban all that much. It's just annoying that judges feel like they can do whatever the fuck and just write any bullshit into the constitution they feel like. That's not the function of the branch and that's not their job. With regards to Gorsuch, I hear you. That said, the democrats kind of set this precedent.
Seriously? The entire point of the judiciary is to act as a check on power from Congress and the President. I'm not sure how interpretation of the law equals making them up on a whim. It's because of those interpretations that yelling "fire" in a theater isn't protected speech, while Jeff Sessions can get away with calling immigrants "filth". It's also why this travel ban ruling is slightly more complicated than posting one line of the first amendment, and telling me I'm wrong. EDIT: PS, democratic party precedent or not, it's still fucked up. I don't like the either party making anything easier on themselves because it means that when the minority becomes the majority, the now majority can do whatever the fuck they want. Using the "they did it first" excuse while pouring gas on to a burning house doesn't do shit for the house, does it?
No shit, I'm not arguing against the judiciary's existence. I'm saying it's a bad ruling based on what the law says. Despite all the reporting on it I've yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how the ruling makes sense, other than "Trump is bad and I don't like him." And that is my issue. The judges didn't interpret the law. They wrote their personal beliefs into the law. That's my problem. I have no idea how someone who is being intellectually honest looks at the above statute and says a president putting in a travel ban is illegal. In all seriousness the ruling makes me think the judge is either too incompetent or too activist to hold his position.
The travel ban is unconstitutional. If you want a coherent explanation, how about what the judge wrote? I'll quote a few that stuck out to me. Hawaii’s legal challenge to the revised ban cites top White House advisor Stephen Miller as saying the revised travel ban is meant to achieve the same basic policy outcome as the original. "The notion that one can demonstrate [ill-will] toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. [...] It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. The Court also took into account numerous statements by the President and his team prior to and since election, which had directly stated that he sought a legal means to achieve a total ban on Muslims entering the United States, and a "dearth" of substantive evidence in support of the stated security benefits. The judge in the first travel ban case that the government didn't even bother to defend was appointed by Bush and unanimously confirmed by the Senate. The second judge was an Obama appointee and also unanimously appointed by the Senate. He also got his law degree from Harvard and was honorably discharged from the Army as a JAG officer. He's never made political contributions and describes himself as an independent, although a colleague described him as "quite conservative, actually".
So if someone illegally enters your house they are a guest and it's ok because "They're just trying to get by"? I'm curious where you draw the line between illegal activity and "Just trying to get by"?
Are you serious? This is exactly what I was saying. This fucktard just wrote his beliefs into the ruling. The above you selected doesn't quote ANYTHING in the law. That's because the law doesn't support his ruling so he just started rambling about how he found the order discriminatory. It's just a long winded way of saying "I don't like it therefore I'm overturning it." The most absurd part of this is the slippery slope argument made in that last snippet. What the fuck is that? Is this a judge or some retard on MSNBC? If you think the statute doesn't give Trump the authority to direct the travel ban then I don't know what else to tell you. The language could not possibly have been clearer or more explicit. "This offends me" is a really fucking stupid reason to overturn an executive order. The courts should not be a tool for SJW activism. The judge is an idiot.
Dude, he cited Supreme Court precedence in his ruling. I don't know how I can make it any more clear than that. That isn't writing his beliefs. That's not him rambling about discrimination. That is using accepted case law as the basis of your ruling. A thing every judge does. All of them. I mean, unless you mean he rambled about how the Supreme Court ruled on cases where discrimination was the issue on four separate cases. Then yeah, he did. Determining that the words the president and members of his government regarding Muslims said in a case determining the constitutionality of an order that targets Muslim majority countries is ridiculous to you? Also, I didn't question the president's authority on making executive orders. What I did say is that the order is unconstitutional and was overturned by two judges on both sides of the political aisle with impeccable credentials.
You are still completely failing to reconcile the ruling with the statute, or explain how the bill of rights now magically applies to non-citizens, or how a travel ban on countries with terrorists groups who explicitly stated they were going to push people through the cracks is a 'total Muslim ban'. Basically, you're happy about it so common sense and the ability to interpret clearly stated language be damned. Edit: The other thing that is alarming about this is based on this backwards logic you could apply it to any travel ban. Why wasn't Obama's travel ban against Israel unconstitutional? Does it become unconstitutional if some idiot activist feels offended? It was antisemitic! Also, it's pretty fucking sad how courts turn a blind eye to these constant privacy violations, but as soon as something is perceived to be prejudiced against their precious, precious Muslims they start whining about constitutionality.
Are you referring to the ban on US aircraft going to Ben Guiron airport in 2014 that lasted 36 hours and was prompted by a rocket landing just outside the airport?