Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 12      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #31 
What is President Trump supposed to do? Freedom of expression is permissible, surely, as long as it does not incite or is accompanied by acts of violence. The fact is that Americans voted for Trump for the same reasons people in other democracies vote for reasonable (albeit "hard") right-wing options: because they are interested in upholding freedom and preserving their way of life. The only reason WN creatures like David Duke seem like they have any relevance at all is because the media picks up on them, but their actual influence on the Right is negligible.

The failure of the middle ground "mainstream" politics to do so is precisely creating the dangerous vacuum that the Far Right is trying to exploit. It is the good fortune of the US and Britain that almost nobody so far within their homegrown White Nationalist movements have the aptitude or charisma, let alone organisational skills, to exploit such an open vacuum. Although people like Jeff Schoep and Matt Heimbach think they somehow can do it.


It's not the raving lunatics you see at rallies or encounter on twitter or forums that are the danger so much as those who appear at least somewhat articulate or eloquent in conveying their poison.

This has not been the case in Greece with an openly neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn being successful, and they're not hiding their revolutionary goals. Neither have the Stalinist KKE. Both openly despise democracy and have revolutionary goals, as well as a solid base of support, but fortunately do not possess the means necessary to realise them. So far anyway.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,039
Reply with quote  #32 
Peter,

I agree about Trump's personality actually, though I am not sure exactly how dangerous he will be. Some of his current danger seems to come from his embrace of establishment neo-cons. As much as I despise him, I'm still not sure his victory was worse than Clinton's would have been.

I think you are incorrect on the Muslim ban and the DACA. The Muslim ban is almost certainly constitutional, if by that we mean the original and long- held understanding of the constitution. It was stopped by judges, all too common these days, who put ideology over precedent and law. This is why the activists chose those judges. SCOTUS overturned many of the lower court findings already, and will likely allow the ban. The DACA was an unconstitutional executive order by Obama. The constitution is very clear that legislative authority resides in congress, and the president is to enforce, not make the laws. Using prosecutorial discretion, meant to be used in very rare and limited circumstances, on a vast amount of people, is a usurpation of the power of congress and an undermining of the American constitutional system. Trump was wise (assuming he thought at all about the issue) not to let the order stand as precedent, and right to send the matter to congress to be decided. You may be right, however, I spoke too soon when I said he was enforcing the border. Perhaps it is better to say he at least says he will very strongly.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #33 
Here is another example of what the Far Left has created. Channel 4 gave a platform to "anti-colonialist Islamist" Nadia Chan, who's since been banned from Twitter:

https://order-order.com/2017/08/29/channel-4s-assed-baig-out-after-promoting-terror-supporting-islamist/

This is a woman who clearly articulates hateful sentiments, appeared on Iranian regime propaganda TV, endorses tyrannies in Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela, and also supports North Korea. All standard Left stuff.

But then you see this:
[image]  [DIYe8YSXgAAm0qs]  [DINqHuMVwAAwB6x] 

She's "pro-Palestinian" then rages against "whites" and "Arabs" (aren't Bosnian and Albanian Muslims white anyway?). Doesn't seem very coherent, while Linda Sarsour and Yassmin Abdel Magied at least seem more so and thus more dangerous!

The disturbing thing is not that this is an unhinged SJW and Islamist ranting, but that these views are widely held on the Left, in academia and media, but expressed more mildly. And worse of all, they're conveyed by more articulate and eloquent people who are far more dangerous as a result.

This is a symptom of a very sick political and academic culture in Britain and other Western nations, where almost every extremist anti-Western current - Communist, Islamist, Irish Republican and any anti-imperialist and Third Worldist movement - is effectively normalised, rationalised and given respectable cover. This process, having taken decades, is precisely what has helped fuel terrorism globally as much as anything coming out of the Islamic World.

It's also interesting that she insults the Irish, given that the Irish have so often viewed themselves as a "sinned against" people who are somehow exempt from the alleged sins of Western Civilisation.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #34 
And here are the nauseating, predictable views trotted out on Channel 4:
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #35 
Sounds a truly loathsome creature. Replying to Wessexman, what I said was that the travel ban was arguably unconstitutional. And it most certainly has been argued, and still is being. I must admit though that I always had my own doubts as to whether it actually was. But no doubt at all that it was a piece of rather nasty gesture politics that would accomplish nothing for the country's security, be extremely difficult to implement successfully and cause great distress for many innocent people along the way. So far the facts seem to bear me out.

If DACA's unconstitutionality is as clear-cut as all that then I am surprised it has not already wound up in the Supreme Court and been quashed there. But it is not in fact so clear-cut, with plenty of respectable legal opinion holding that it was a valid exercise of executive discretion, and five years after it was put in place it hasn't got anywhere near the court yet, nor been stayed in a lower court. Again, its proposed ending is gesture politics, careless of the harm caused and the fact that the actual effects of the policy seem to have been in all respects benign.

Naturally, the Trump administration has been keeping factcheckers busy with public lies that the policy is blatantly illegal, when it is not, and economically damaging, when it has been the reverse. Personally I think news journals should give their factcheckers a holiday and announce a new policy of their own: statement by Trump or his administration = lie. It would work almost all the time, and save a lot of work too.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
I agree that our friend Ethiomonarchist went too far, Trump isn't systematically encouraging the far Right, though he's not discouraging them either.
 

I beg to differ, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Peter and David.  At every opportunity that he has had to catagorically condemn the far right, President Trump has issued a watery statement read from a teleprompter (obviously staff prepared) or blamed "both sides", and then gone to a public rally where his off the cuff statements give comfort to the far right by using their trigger phrases.  After his "both sides" statement he had members of his cabinet who were actually present on the spot, seething and one (Mr. Cohen) contemplated resignation.  Many members of his Presidential Commissions abandoned him precisely because of this.  I am not in the position to say President Trump is a racist, he might not be in his personal life, I wouldn't know.  However, he has been very adept at manipulating and using catchphrases, causes and attitudes to keep the racists and the fascistic far right firmly in his camp and forming the core of his base.  I'm not talking about conservative "Bible Belt" Americans who believe in personal responsibility, "family values" and limited government a la Ronald Reagan.  I'm talking about torch burning, swastika flying, hood wearing people who have been emboldened to march and insult and attack others at an unprecidented rate since Trump came to office.

It's a matter of perspective I suppose.  Being an immigrant American citizen of color watching what is going on around me even in this most Liberal of cities is truly alarming.  I never thought George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan, were even remotely similar to President Trump in this.  I think he horrifies most Republicans.  He certainly horrifies me. 

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,039
Reply with quote  #37 
But why should Trump repudiate the far-right? That is a liberal media game meant to associate the mainstream right with the far-right and imply some responsibility for them. I don't blame him for not wanting to play. Obama had his campaign launch in the home of a terrorist, and the media considered it rightwing smears to bring it up, but Trump is automatically supposed to respond to comments from David Duke et al. as if he had some responsibility for them. The attitudes and catchphrases you are talking about seem to be his anti-immigration ones. That's his platform. It is a legitimate one, so far as it has any details. Now, some on the far-right might be enthused by a president whose rhetoric is tough on border enforcement. But that doesn't mean his rhetoric and policies are far-right themselves. The liberal media typically plays guilt by association here, as they do, for example, with UKIP.

Wouldn't what you're saying cover just about anyone for orderly migration and border control?

Peter,

I suppose that almost any executive order or law is arguably unconstitutional.

On DACA, conservatives have long argued, correctly, it was unconstitutional. Here is article one of the US constitution:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

If prosecutorial discretion means exempting whole classes of people, many hundreds of thousands or millions, from the law, then it not discretion any more. It is is a dispensing power, and the president is making the law. What significant difference would there be between this law and the later executive order of Obama on immigration. What law couldn't a president suspend, at least for larr swathes of people? Whatever his actual motives and thoughts on the subject, Trump was right to repeal this law.

Rich Lowry has it right on this subject:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451097/donald-trump-daca-congress-should-legislate-not-president

Quote:
Even in our divided politics, it should be a matter of consensus that the president of the United States can’t write laws on his own.

That’s what President Barack Obama did twice when he unilaterally granted amnesties to swaths of the illegal-immigrant population. The courts blocked one of these measures, known as DAPA, and President Donald Trump has now begun the process of ending the other, DACA, on a delayed, rolling basis.

In a country with a firmer commitment to its Constitution and the rule of law, there’d be robust argument over how to deal with the DACA recipients — so-called DREAMers who were brought here by their illegal-immigrant parents as children — but no question that Congress is the appropriate body for considering the matter, not the executive branch. Any Republican president worth his salt would do this.

Instead, President Trump is getting roundly denounced by all his usual critics for inviting Congress to work its will. Obama came out of his brief retirement to join the pile-on. In a Facebook post, the former president said it’s wrong “to target these young people,” and called Trump’s act “cruel” and “contrary to our spirit, and to common sense.”

This is a lot of hyperventilating, even for a former president of the United States who must loathe his successor. Trump’s decision is a relatively modest way to roll back what is clearly an extralegal act.

The president goes out of his way to minimize disruption for current DACA recipients. The administration will stop accepting new applications for the program but will continue to consider two-year renewals for recipients whose status is expiring between now and March 5. This gives Congress a six-month window for its own solution before anyone’s status changes.


Trump has actually been uncharacteristically sensible and given the those affected by the rescinding of the unconstitutional order plenty of breathing space whilst congress does it job and decides what will replace the order.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #38 
Again, I saw nothing wrong with Trump condemning "Both Sides" because what he said was 100% true - both sides do have a legal and constitutional right to express themselves through peaceful protest and assembly, but members of both sides did step over the line into violence.

There is no "spectacular growth" of the "Far Right" in the USA, it's just that the media has conveyed that impression. It's true that some of that movement have become more sophisticated in presenting themselves, but they aren't fooling most people including myself.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #39 
Of the four regular participants in the present discussion, two are in Australia, one in Britain and one in the US. Given that the discussion centres around what is happening in the US, I would not so readily dismiss the view of the last-mentioned participant. Here are some facts about DACA. What rational, as opposed to prejudicial, basis would there be from those facts for ending the programme?

I don't see anything wrong with asking Trump, or any person with a claim to some kind of decency, to reject support from the likes of Duke. Doing so wasn't an attempt to smear Trump by association, it was an opportunity for him to refute any suggestion of association. One he declined to take, but then I never thought Trump to have any claim to decency.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,039
Reply with quote  #40 
The problem with the DACA is not necessarily it content, but the process. If it was to be passed, it was for congress to do it. It is not the president's job to pass laws.

The media has a long record of playing such gotcha games with the right. They rarely do so for the left. As you know, I despise all these kinds of games, and guilt by association, even when the right play them, and have argued that forcefully.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #41 
For your first paragraph, that is a reasonable view. The facts remain that DACA was implemented only after filibustering had prevented Congress from passing a law obviously necessary and desirable, that there is a strong body of legal opinion holding that it was a valid act, and that no court has ruled it unconstitutional, despite the passage of over five years providing ample time for court action to have been taken.

For the second, I would join with you in regretting that the extreme left is not generally held in the same opprobrium as the extreme right, which it certainly ought to be. That does not however mean that the extreme right should get a pass, or that when invited to do so Trump should not have disassociated himself from it. No one is going to ask Trump to disassociate himself from the extreme left, after all, so the call to do so from its mirror image following Duke's endorsement was not necessarily a display of bias.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #42 

Last week, Channel 4 in the UK outdid itself. They wanted to recruit "moderate" and "mainstream" Muslim women to "break down stereotypes". Except that "moderate" and "mainstream", even by Muslim standards, absolutely did not describe any of the women interviewed. While Nadia Chan, who I've already ranted about this week (and maybe not enough), was the most extreme, the others were parroting the same old Leftist tropes about "decolonisation" and "Imperialism" besides the usual cries for "equality".

To be sure, Channel 4 have tried to cover it up by taking the feature down. They're embarrassed no doubt, because Nadia Chan has been booted off Twitter for her vicious tweets, embarrassing even a Muslim preacher who isn't known for being sympathetic to Israel. But when you rage against "whites and Arabs", call Conor McGregor a "white Irish parasite", support tyranny and terror and even think Linda Sarsour and the anti-Trump "Resistance " isn't extreme enough for you. No surprise because the Channel 4 reporter associated with this, Assed Baig, apparently calls conservative and non-radical Muslims "sell-outs". That says it all.

However, here is the gist of it: this is not just about Islam. Or even primarily about Islam. It isn't a Muslim issue or even an immigrant issue. It speaks to a very real sickness in British and general Western political and academic culture. These disturbing views are not held by all Muslims, of course, nor is it only Muslims who hold them. In fact, they're widely held among the Left in politics, academia and minority activism but are couched in more respectable language by more articulate speakers, who are thus all the more dangerous.

Witness the probe of Edinburgh University student Robbie Travers - who is a sort of acquaintance via a FB friend - because his mocking of ISIS (something many Muslims have done, btw) is apparently "Islamophobic". The gist of it is that the student making the complaint isn't even a Muslim! That's right. It's the same strand of thought bringing us Rhodes Must Fall, BLM, and other postcolonial tropes. Never mind the lack of scrutiny that allows such anti-Western theories to be peddled and become mainstream without scrutiny.

The disturbing fact is that British and general Western universities, media and intellectual elites are as much if not more an ideological source of extremism and even terrorism as any country in the Middle East. This is because general political violence is a consequence of such ideologies, and terrorism is the highest, most organised and systematic form of such violence.

This is the result of decades of self-hatred being standardised in Western democracies through education and media, effectively undermining social cohesion and national loyalty, such that immigrants and non-immigrants alike don't feel loyal to their country or have any reason to believe in it. We see this in Australia, where the education system also promotes this sort of postcolonial trope. In a Sydney university, you'll find the Far Left academic Tim Anderson is pro-Assad and pro-North Korea. Yet he's allowed to teach. That says it all.

Yes, it is a "Muslim problem" and more than enough Muslims acknowledge it as such. But we simply shouldn't be blinded to the fact that it is part of a much wider sickness in Western society, and the origins of it may not even necessarily come from immigrants themselves. An education and media narrative engendering hostility to Western values and civilisation is as much an inspiration and potential incubator for extremism and terrorism as anything you'll hear in an extremist-run mosque. Let's not blind ourselves to this.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,039
Reply with quote  #43 
On the DACA, I don't see that the lack of action from congress is important. That is Obama's claim, of course. But the constitution doesn't say the president can start to make the law when congress doesn't act. This wasn't a literal emergency. There are even arguments against the content of the DACA, especially without enforcement of the border - it acts as a magnet for more illegal immigration and the bringing of children on the dangerous journey. The DACA is unconstitutional because it is not the president's job to make the law. There is nothing a president can't do if it is constitutional. There is little significant difference between the DACA and Obama's second action. You are still dealing with huge swathes of people. I have seen no proper constitutional arguments, rather than political ones in favour of the DACA. The best offered is usually an appeal to prosecutorial discretion. But that is supposed to be used in very narrow and limited cases, not to exempt huge swathes of people. There is very little the president couldn't do in that case.

On the second point, I take your point. We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think it helps to hold a candidate responsible for anyone who is on the same side of the political spectrum or who shows some support for him. I think this applies, for example, to the recent man who shot the Republican congressmen as much as for Trump and David Duke.

Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
The problem with the DACA is not necessarily it content, but the process. If it was to be passed, it was for congress to do it. It is not the president's job to pass laws.


That is the rather weak argument being deployed by the President and his Attorney General (now playing foot soldier in this affair after having been thrown under the bus by his boss very recently over his very proper act of recusal from the Russia Investigation).  The fact is that President Obama was hardly the first person to suspend, amend, change, or re-interpret a Federal Law using an Exectutive Order.  DACA is not a law, rather it is an executive action on how existing immigration law is to be executed, and is firmly within the powers of the Presidency.  It is exactly within the powers of the Executive Branch set up in the constitution.  Indeed, if we are to look at what President Trump has done in his time as President so far, he has done zero via legislation and everything through his record number of Executive Orders, whether it's the Muslim Ban, or anything else he can point to as having done since coming to power.  As Peter pointed out, the legal consensus has been that DACA is perfectly constitutional (as is its repeal), and that President Obama did not exceed his powers in putting it in effect.

Of course President Trump has decided he's in the mood to piss off the Republican congressional leadership and has become chummy with Speaker Pelosi lately, and she apparently was the person who convinced him to send out a Tweet assuring the "Dreamers" that they shouldn't be worried and no one is going to deport them in 6 months [rolleyes]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-tweets-reassurance-dreamers-pelosi-s-request-n799526

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,039
Reply with quote  #45 
In no sense is that the legal consensus on the DACA. I have, in fact, seen no one who respected precedent and original intent who has argued for it being constitutional. The rest are the usual suspects who make up the constitution as they go along, according to their ideology, and aren't worth listening to. Conservatives at the time, many who were anti-Trump, and still are, blasted Obama. Charles Krauthammer, for example. Yes, the president uses executive orders to decide how to enforce the law, but he is supposed to enforce the law. He has no dispensing power that allows him to just set aside the law, except in extraordinary matters of prosecutorial discretion (which this is not). That is what Obama did. There is little difference between the DACA and the second executive order in this respect. I don't see the relevance that other presidents may have pushed the extent of their executive powers.

As the Federalist pointed out, the very fact Obama said he had to step in because congress hadn't acted shows the DACA was extraordinary:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/05/rescinding-daca-is-the-right-thing-to-do/

Here Rich Lowry, chief editor of National Review, claims there is basically no legal case for DACA, so not everyone has got the memo that there is overwhelming legal opinion of its constitutionality. The other editor agrees:

http://www.nationalreview.com/media/editors/editors-daca

These are not Trump supporters. As they point out DAPA seems to follow from DACA. If you exempt the Dreamers, why not their parents, and then you end with the president exempting half the illegals in America. These actions were making law, not enforcing it. They were unconstitutional.



Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.