3 ms·

> There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law No, that's exactly what the Giuliani story doesn't indicate: it indicates the exact opposit

by wtbob 10y ago

> There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law No, that's exactly what the Giuliani story doesn't indicate: it indicates the exact opposite, which is that they did this legally. Incidentally, I think it's possible to support neither the President nor the media. The National Review had a recent article, whose title was something like 'Trump's order is wrong, but the Left is insane.' It's entirely possible to disagree with everyone who's shouting.

grey-area 10y ago
What he wants violates the law: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" not what he did (the EO), which debatable in terms of legality, the EO could be legal as the president has a lot of power on immigration, though the former AG thinks not. Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter. You say this like there's something bad about it, first. There are lots of Trump supporters, or at least Trump voters, and their opinions have every potential to be valid. What's the point of this political shame game? It only hurts your position overall and such smugness may very well have played a large role in your side's election loss. Second, I voted for Trump, but I don't consider myself a "Trump supporter" as such -- I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, as I previously explained, and I don't have any specific personal opinion on Trump's EOs, pending further research. Thirdly, as we've also already established, one need not be pro-Trump to recognize that the media is anti-Trump. That's not a "recycled talking point", that's a real thing. You may disagree if you wish, but your blatant hostility and denigration of others is not appropriate for this forum. You should read PG's essay at http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html. It is just as fair to say that Mr. Trump's EO is more reflective of his actual opinion than his campaign statements as it is to do the opposite. That argument is zero sum because no one can know anyone else's true intentions. You seem to be having difficulty grasping some of the nuance here, and trying to whip up a hysterical mob reaction. This is a thread about technical legal topics such as separation of powers and constitutional obligations, etc. In the future, you may wish to go visit the Huffington Post or something of that nature for the dismissive, mean-spirited political bigotry that you're attempting to use to pollute HN.
  - grey-area 10y ago
    Apologies for being off-hand or derisive, it wasn't meant in that spirit, nor to shame you, it was in the context of your claim of neutrality further downthread. My side certainly is not Clinton/Obama/Democrats, but I don't agree with Trump and am concerned about him as president after the first week.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      I am neutral on this issue. At this point my personal opinions have been widely exposed so everyone should have clear perspective on where I'm coming from, which I'm more than happy to provide. But even with this reply, you seem to be persisting in the claim that I'm not neutral as it relates to this EO on immigration based on the fact that I voted for Trump and/or that I recognize a strong anti-Trump bias in the media. That's what's grating here. You're saying that you don't intend to shame or denigrate, but then you make claims that appear intended to discredit me based on my opinions on unrelated issues, like media bias. A vote for Trump does not automatically mean one endorses/agrees with every action he takes whilst in office, nor does acknowledgement of the mostly blatantly biased and hostile reporting in modern history. Anyway, I do appreciate the apology and your participation in the discussion. Echo chambers are very tiring, and HN is one of the only places one can come and have this type of debate with only the minor downside of losing 50 karma overnight. :P

by wtbob 10y ago

grey-area 10y ago

What he wants violates the law: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" not what he did (the EO), which debatable in terms of legality, the EO could be legal as the president has a lot of power on immigration, though the former AG thinks not. Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter. You say this like there's something bad about it, first. There are lots of Trump supporters, or at least Trump voters, and their opinions have every potential to be valid. What's the point of this political shame game? It only hurts your position overall and such smugness may very well have played a large role in your side's election loss. Second, I voted for Trump, but I don't consider myself a "Trump supporter" as such -- I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, as I previously explained, and I don't have any specific personal opinion on Trump's EOs, pending further research. Thirdly, as we've also already established, one need not be pro-Trump to recognize that the media is anti-Trump. That's not a "recycled talking point", that's a real thing. You may disagree if you wish, but your blatant hostility and denigration of others is not appropriate for this forum. You should read PG's essay at http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html. It is just as fair to say that Mr. Trump's EO is more reflective of his actual opinion than his campaign statements as it is to do the opposite. That argument is zero sum because no one can know anyone else's true intentions. You seem to be having difficulty grasping some of the nuance here, and trying to whip up a hysterical mob reaction. This is a thread about technical legal topics such as separation of powers and constitutional obligations, etc. In the future, you may wish to go visit the Huffington Post or something of that nature for the dismissive, mean-spirited political bigotry that you're attempting to use to pollute HN.
- grey-area 10y ago
  Apologies for being off-hand or derisive, it wasn't meant in that spirit, nor to shame you, it was in the context of your claim of neutrality further downthread. My side certainly is not Clinton/Obama/Democrats, but I don't agree with Trump and am concerned about him as president after the first week.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I am neutral on this issue. At this point my personal opinions have been widely exposed so everyone should have clear perspective on where I'm coming from, which I'm more than happy to provide. But even with this reply, you seem to be persisting in the claim that I'm not neutral as it relates to this EO on immigration based on the fact that I voted for Trump and/or that I recognize a strong anti-Trump bias in the media. That's what's grating here. You're saying that you don't intend to shame or denigrate, but then you make claims that appear intended to discredit me based on my opinions on unrelated issues, like media bias. A vote for Trump does not automatically mean one endorses/agrees with every action he takes whilst in office, nor does acknowledgement of the mostly blatantly biased and hostile reporting in modern history. Anyway, I do appreciate the apology and your participation in the discussion. Echo chambers are very tiring, and HN is one of the only places one can come and have this type of debate with only the minor downside of losing 50 karma overnight. :P