specialk said:
irstupid said:
No I dont' regret it. I do though want the media to fricken implode and need to make huge changes. It is so insanely biased I can't even watch it anymore. I'll watch a small bit of local news, but otherwise you can't trust anything anymore from the news. I've resorted to watching people on YouTube like Philip Defranco or others who can just "report" the news without having to toss in their spin or agenda.
Take Trump for example. Saw a bunch of articles and pics showing his 100 days failure. They were basically lists of things he promised to do in his 100 days and saying "nope" Well if you looked at the list, he tried to do most all of those things, except go after Hillary, yet they are being delayed/blocked/ect from inept congress or some random small judge in a random state. Say what you want about if those things would be good or not, the very fact he is attempting to actually do what he promised is an insanely rare thing in a president.
Also take the recent Twitter finances. They came out like this week sometime. There was hundreds of articles about them. You know talking about their growth, increased revenue, stocks rising, ect. You know all good things. Then there are a couple articles saying "Even with Trump, twitter fails to ...." whatever it was, going off memory. But seriously like 99% of the articles are about how great Twitter is doing, and yet they are saying it is doing bad? And what's with the Trump click bait.
But agenda'd click bait is now the news world we live in. |
lol.
Real advice. If you want better news, you probably have to pay for it. Subscribe to a newspaper or two. Pledge to NPR.
|
And what NPR doesn't have a slant? Ha. Besides, I'm skeptical to trust any new organization that gets any funding from their government.
SpokenTruth said:
irstupid said:
To me the President of the United States holds more water than one single judge in the country. So as for a major country/world wide issue such as the travel ban on the heavy terrorist states, to me it shoudl be the Supreme Court and only teh Supreme court that should be approving/holding up/blocking such an order.
When Obama was president, I'm sure there was some random judge in like Kentucky or something that was rulling that every single thing that Obama did was unconstitutional.
We are too highly partisaned these days for every judge in the united states to be considered a check and balance. THere are over 3000 federal judges in teh u.s. right now, and your saying its a good thing to have it that all it takes is one of them to block any and everything the president, or congress does?
We are a democratic republic right? So why not get teh opinion on all 3000+ judges. Wouldn't that make more sense. Cause of right now, just 1 out of 3000 judges is holding something up. That seems skewed.
|
Because executive orders can be challanged by any federal judge on the grounds of contitutionality, legality, etc...
Congress makes the laws, the president exeucitves those laws and the courts validate them within the confines of previous laws and the Contitution. Trump has been trying to circumvent Congress with executive orders since day 1.
And yes, Obama had some of his blocked by judges too. Higher level courts can overturn lower level court tulings but that's not happened so far....suggesting they agree with the original blocking.
|
I know how the system works, and th reasons Supreme Court hasn't agreed or overturned Hawaii is because the issue has not been brought to them. I don't know if its cause they don't want to pursue the ban and it was more of a show to his suporters, if they are gathering stuff to have a solid case for the supreme court or just going to do a new executive order twith slight tweaks instead. The point is not about it's legality, but the ease of blocking an executive order from our top leader. Makes as much sense as if Trump ordered us to say Nuke North Korea, and some random seargent in the military came out and said "no". His say woudl mean nothing. You would need Generals, Admirals, ect to speak up. (an extreme example. besides not sure on who has nuke authority or say)
But take Trumps days in office. Take his nominees. There were people waiting outside with protest signs and ready to protest before he even announced anyone. The second he woudl , they would take up and start protested, not even knowing or c aring who it was. Just doing it cause they don't like trump. When the chemical attacks happened in syria it was nonstop bitching about how Trump isn't doing anythign and then when he did like 2 days after the attacks, it was nonstop bitching about how he shouldn't have done anything.
That is all I see in teh news if I flip it on. Any and everythingn to bitch and complain about trump. As I said before, some even taking Twitters success and somehow calling it a failure and blaiming that made up failure on Trump.
So in an environment like that, I'm a little skeptical about a judges ruling being nonbiased.
