Hillary and Trump

[redcairo]

Well Trump said he'd work to repeal every "unconstitutional" executive order-etc. that OB made.

 

That will be a helluva list.

 

Like arresting and 'detaining' (imprisoning) without notice to anybody; without charge; and indefinitely. When I was growing up we read about that. It was called The Gestapo.

 

RC

[ralis]

I also heard that Obama passed a last minute executive order about mandatory vaccines. 

 

 

Are you against immunizations?

[redcairo]

Well I certainly am against 'mandating' people stick chemicals in their body -- especially after spending the last decade of my life focused on a lot of published science and the politics thereof.

 

Which make the politics of politics look almost well intentioned.

 

There are a few -- very small number -- for children, and then tetanus. Pretty much everything else is about money, not your health.

 

RC

Edited November 11, 2016 by redcairo

[Brian]

Are you against immunizations?

Can you point to the delegation of authority in the Constitution?

[ralis]

Public health is the overriding concern. E.g. small pox was eradicated by vaccination and prior to a vaccine, killed millions. Anyone seen a child with small pox? The suffering is horrific!

 

Anyone want to contract polio? Small pox? TB? How about Ebola?

 

I disagree with all the anti vaccine mongering in that a public health crisis of serious consequences can be prevented with a vaccine.

[ralis]

With Ebola, one bleeds out through every orifice. A horrific death! Ebola has not become a public health threat in the US, but in West Africa.

[Brian]

Public health is the overriding concern. E.g. small pox was eradicated by vaccination and prior to a vaccine, killed millions. Anyone seen a child with small pox? The suffering is horrific!

 

Anyone want to contract polio? Small pox? TB? How about Ebola?

 

I disagree with all the anti vaccine mongering in that a public health crisis of serious consequences can be prevented with a vaccine.

The President is obligated to do what is constitutional rather than what he or she believes is right. This includes enforcing laws with which he or she disagrees and vetoing bills with which he or she agrees. This is the oath taken. The only appropriate use for an executive order is to provide procedural support within the Administrative Branch for faithfully executing those laws. Using executive orders to supplant the legislative process is blatantly unconstitutional regardless of how good the idea might seem.

 

Food for thought:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=wmborj

[Brian]

Public health is the overriding concern. E.g. small pox was eradicated by vaccination and prior to a vaccine, killed millions. Anyone seen a child with small pox? The suffering is horrific!

 

Anyone want to contract polio? Small pox? TB? How about Ebola?

 

I disagree with all the anti vaccine mongering in that a public health crisis of serious consequences can be prevented with a vaccine.

 

 

With Ebola, one bleeds out through every orifice. A horrific death! Ebola has not become a public health threat in the US, but in West Africa.

Horrific but irrelevant.

[ralis]

Well I certainly am against 'mandating' people stick chemicals in their body -- especially after spending the last decade of my life focused on a lot of published science and the politics thereof.

 

Which make the politics of politics look almost well intentioned.

 

There are a few -- very small number -- for children, and then tetanus. Pretty much everything else is about money, not your health.

 

RC

 

 

If you want the peer reviewed science, I can ask my neighbor who holds a PhD in Public Health from Johns Hopkins to provide such documents. She is very involved in vaccination programs as well as health initiatives in Central America.

Edited November 11, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

 

 

Horrific but irrelevant.

Sort of like Ralis. ;-) joking, joking

[ralis]

 

 

Horrific but irrelevant.

 

I guess persons in West Africa are irrelevant persons.

 

BTW, the post about Obama signing some executive order is most likely not true but another conspiracy to divide us. MoonNiNite stated hearsay.

Edited November 11, 2016 by ralis

[dawei]

omg. I hope this article isnt true.

 

http://www.alternativenewsnetwork.net/breaking-obama-pardon-hillary-clinton-trump-presidency/

 

It would be a win-win to do it...  And then let the FBI continue their investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

[dust]

Well Trump said he'd work to repeal every "unconstitutional" executive order-etc. that OB made.

 

That will be a helluva list.

 

Like arresting and 'detaining' (imprisoning) without notice to anybody; without charge; and indefinitely. When I was growing up we read about that. It was called The Gestapo.

 

RC

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

 

Firstly: Not an executive order.

 

Secondly, some words from Obama himself on the subject:

 

"Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

 

Thirdly: section 1021 b covers:

 

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 

(a)  In General.–That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

 

 

I'd like someone to point out precisely where this veers wildly off course from the AUMF of 2001...?

Edited November 11, 2016 by dust

[Brian]

I guess persons in West Africa are irrelevant persons.

 

BTW, the post about Obama signing some executive order is most likely not true but another conspiracy to divide us. MoonNiNite stated hearsay.

Persons in West Africa are irrelevant from the perspective of rule of law, ralis. Your feelings are irrelevant in this regard, too -- as are mine, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the President. There is no gray area here. If you don't like it, get an Amendment passed; it's been done a couple dozen times before.

[Brian]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

 

Firstly: Not an executive order.

 

Secondly, some words from Obama himself on the subject:

 

"Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

 

Thirdly: section 1021 b covers:

 

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 

(a)  In General.–That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

 

 

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

 

 

I'd like someone to point out precisely where this veers wildly off course from the AUMF of 2001...?

I don't think she's talking about AUMF, although there's lots to discuss about that ever-expanding document, too. She is more likely talking about citizens being detained indefinitely incommunicado on suspicion rather than probable cause (with secret courts issuing secret warrants based on secret evidence) without the need for charges to be filed or any pretense of due process.

 

As with so much else, this is not an R vs D thing but a rule of law and constitutionality thing.

[dust]

I don't think she's talking about AUMF, although there's lots to discuss about that ever-expanding document, too. She is more likely talking about citizens being detained indefinitely incommunicado on suspicion rather than probable cause (with secret courts issuing secret warrants based on secret evidence) without the need for charges to be filed or any pretense of due process.

 

As with so much else, this is not an R vs D thing but a rule of law and constitutionality thing.

 

My main point was that it wasn't an executive order, so even if it did outrageously violate the constitution, Obama isn't to be blamed alone. Congress and the Senate approved it. And even if it were an executive order, the courts do review it and could strike it down. That hasn't happened. If there's a problem, it's not just with Obama -- but he seems to take all the heat for it from those complaining about it.

 

The other point was that section in the bill passed was not different -- as far as I can tell -- from that of the AUMF, which was signed off on in 2001 -- so if a president is to be blamed for violations of constitution and human rights, Bush should be front of the line, no?

 

One other thing: I'm not claiming that Obama is perfect, but there are people claiming that he signed off on indefinite detainment of anyone in the world including US citizens without reason. This is patently untrue: unless I have missed something (and I will accept contrary evidence!) basically, a detainee must be linked to terrorist activity (engaging in, aiding in, or supporting).

[Karl]

How can Clinton be pardoned if she isn't under investigation for anything.....ah penny drops. Comeys revenge.

[redcairo]

Thank you Dust, for the details.

 

Re: hemorrhagic fevers are terrible. Maybe what I should have said instead is that in a system with a profound amount of corruption and not just millions but many billions to be made off immunizations, the amount of fundamental manipulation and deviousness in the industry -- especially one where the ubercorps and shareholders who control licensing and edu also control manufacturing and retail also control medicine and surgery and medication also control the captured government agencies that allegedly regulate them -- there is too much to get into but it's with every single little area to the point it's literally exhausting, and of course, by definition nobody's an expert unless they agree with the money, if they are and don't agree they are instantly un-experted, so huge fear/threat. (Statins are another example.)

 

The underlying problem is money, any time you make "just convince the government it's good" something that makes billions of dollars, there's going to be an insane amount of carefu l research-as-marketing, re-presentation, stats spin, and more to get everything possible lined up. That doesn't mean a useful immunization never happened but it does mean you just cannot hand government-police power to sources who profit off whatever one is being forced to do. It's just inherently bad even when good intentions and occasionally something decent is involved -- the precedent and larger picture are just never worth it. Meds are almost never tested together in today's world, and there hasn't even been time for medium to long term tests on children on any two recent ones let alone more, and biological individuality is the airbrushed elephant in the living room of the whole medical topic, and there are TONS of these things and we'd be pouring them all into the baby/toddler bloodstream if the sources of profit for it had their way.

 

The whole medical topic is just horrible especially because good, smart people are part of the distortion of the system itself. And of course because you can leverage any damn thing with "but it's for the children!"

 

RC

[redcairo]

The other point was that section in the bill passed was not different -- as far as I can tell -- from that of the AUMF, which was signed off on in 2001 -- so if a president is to be blamed for violations of constitution and human rights, Bush should be front of the line, no?

 

 

Many of the more orwellian E.O.'s (e.g. for emergency powers) have been run through every president going back half a dozen or a dozen. So no, I don't blame BO out of context with the rest. I agree he's not much diff than everyone else in that regard.

 

PS and thanks again for the detail -- that is a great response and I appreciate that kind of detail. That is the sort of thing I hope to learn in discussion.

 

For medical reasons I have some serious memory issues from the past decade, and I never know when they're going to crop up so sometimes everything is new LOL.

 

RC

Edited November 12, 2016 by redcairo

[MooNiNite]

This list is actually pretty awesome!

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

 

Personal favorites:

 

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

 

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

 

 

These two are kinda interesting:

 

"* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama"

 

"* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator"

[redcairo]

Food for thought:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=wmborj

 

Nice essay. I think of it like a business to a great degree. If I as the CEO tell people under me, bring me business plans for your divisions to accomplish X, and your parameters are, you can't violate existing corp regulations as detailed here, and you have Y budget, then that's what I expect. If they give me business plans that F up one or both areas, me going "Well gosh, I had to choose something, I had to sign it, that was my only choice" is mostly lame, with super rare exceptions -- it's weak management. The appropriate action would be, "It's your job to know these boundaries and operate within them and not, by timing or piling-on of multiple things together, force ME into a position of violating the very boundaries I said were important."

 

I think that is why I feel, as I said somewhere else, that the greatest danger to the country from DJT's win isn't him, but is the far right since now the red controls everything, trying to push through crappy anticonstitutional legislation because now they'll feel like they can.

 

That is why gays are worried, or women -- that abortion or gay marriage might be threatened for example or that really stupid bills created (usually by zealots) will actually become law -- and these happen, no doubt, so it's probably a valid worry. I don't think DJT is religiously driven to change either of those, no matter what his personal beliefs or preferences. The question will be whether he is willing to have the backbone to stand up to the leverage all the R's will try to force upon him.

 

His first goal is to set term limits to undercut the ridiculous amount of corruption that comes of people getting funding to get re-elected continually and being totally in bed with the corporate monies rather than the people of their state. I'm willing to bet that since all the congressmen are actually the ones benefitting from that, they will totally not want to do anything to threaten it, and they have to vote it in. Good luck with that dude!

 

RC

Edited November 12, 2016 by redcairo

[redcairo]

This list is actually pretty awesome!

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

 

 

I agree! I am doing a whole series on every item in that, as threads here. The menu (first two are up) is here:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42474-djt-100-days-menu/

 

I'll be interested to see what locals have to say on these things.

 

RC

[redcairo]

I guess persons in West Africa are irrelevant persons..

 

Gah! See, there you did it!

 

I don't even have to go to a mainstream news media channel for it.

 

So if someone presents that

a> The constitution is the law of the land.

b> One can make amendments when appropriate. We have a process for doing that.

c> It's inappropriate to do things that violate the constitution outright (without going through b>) just because someone thinks it's a good idea.

(because that is no respect for the constitution at all if anyone in a position of power can arbitrarily ignore it.)

 

You suggest it's a good idea because disease is horrific.

 

And someone presents that yes it's horrific (many illnesses are), but that's not relevant to the action needing to be legally within -- or following a proper amendment change for -- the constitution.

 

And you promptly made it RACISM AGAINST WEST AFRICAN PEOPLE.

 

(West African lives matter! We are not irrelevant! omg)

 

I can't even mutter at my screen properly because I have a cold and I sound like Elmer Fudd trying to swear.

 

RC

Edited November 12, 2016 by redcairo

[Brian]

Gah! See, there you did it!

 

I don't even have to go to a mainstream news media channel for it.

 

So if someone presents that

a> The constitution is the law of the land.

b> One can make amendments when appropriate. We have a process for doing that.

c> It's inappropriate to do things that violate the constitution outright (without going through b>) just because someone thinks it's a good idea.

(because that is no respect for the constitution at all if anyone in a position of power can arbitrarily ignore it.)

 

You suggest it's a good idea because disease is horrific.

 

And someone presents that yes it's horrific (many illnesses are), but that's not relevant to the action needing to be legally within -- or following a proper amendment change for -- the constitution.

 

And you promptly made it RACISM AGAINST WEST AFRICAN PEOPLE.

 

(West African lives matter! We are not irrelevant! omg)

 

I can't even mutter at my screen properly because I have a cold and I sound like Elmer Fudd trying to swear.

 

RC

LMAO

 

I think it's an illness.

[redcairo]

Maybe it is just an overabundance of compassion and projective empathy, outweighing objective discussion with subjective concern. Which is a lovely state of heart but it becomes like that quip about young/old and heart/brain in politics. Politics is probably not the topic to discuss when one is feeling emotionally sensitive.  RC