87% or 1.4 billion Muslims are NOT affected by the TEMPORARY TRAVEL BAN. Not much of a "MUSLIM BAN"

[GaryDog]

LMAO, please. The wall will be reimbursed? Uh-uh. Not what he said in the campaign, and it's not even what's going to be happen Any tarriffs or taxes will be paid by U.S. taxpayers.

It remains to be seen. Hell all he could even mandate that all seized drug $$ found coming or going to Mexico be detailed for the wall.

Considering that's the best you got as a response, and it means that the Wall would have been built, I wouldn't claim it as much of a victory. Hell, the wall's high end cost is 10-20 billion, which is what the Feds spend in TWO DAYS of normal operation.

And all of that drug money would've been seized anyway, and used for something else. The feds spend 10-20 billion in two days of normal operation? So what, we shut down the entire federal government for 2 days to pay for the wall?

All of that STILL translates to "Trump lied about being able to make mexico pay for the wall."

And no, that's not the best I've got. We've still got Trump's childlike claims that he'll stop crime, stop terrorism, bring back manufacturing jobs, etc. etc. etc. The list is really way too long for one off-the-cuff reply to someone who's definitely consumed too much kool aid.

Well now they can use it for the wall. and if not "Mexico pays for it", it's "Mexicans paid for it" and that is just as good.

Nah, we just have to shave off a few million every day, and its paid for. Trump has promised a 20% reduction in some federal agencies, we can get the $$ from there.

It's only 2 weeks into his administration or so, give him time.

You're not grasping the point. If we cut in other areas, we're paying for it.

Unless we directly rob the Mexican treasury, they're not paying for it. Period.

And this is to say nothing of the blatantly unnecessary, stupid idea of a wall to begin with. And his own lies about the cost, etc.

If they used siezed drug money they are paying for it. Hell, if they reduce any aid we send to mexico by the wall cost they end up "paying for it"

Yes, you think the wall is a terrible no good very bad awful never work idea. So why should I care about any of your other statements on it?

That aid money is our money. Still not mexico paying for it. Seized drug money is govt money. Not mexico paying for it.

At no time did Trump say "we will be reimbursed." And I've not seen "cut their aid" as a solution, so far I've seen "20% border tax", which is an obvious tax on American consumers. And it's absolutely INCONCEIVABLE that his administration didn't know that when they released that fucking retarded statement.


Of course the wall is fucking retarded. It will steal property from private american landowners, which will cost MILLIONS in litigation; it will destroy habitat of fragile eco systems, perhaps wiping out whole species, and IT WON'T STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION most of which doesn't come over through the Texas and New Mexico desert, you idiot.

 

[GaryDog]

Agreed. He is following through with the things that he said during his campaign. That doesn't make him honest though, his campaign and now his presidency is littered with lies and manipulation.
To what ends is it justifiable to progress your agenda? It may be easy for you or his supporters to turn a blind eye because it progresses causes you support, but imagine if you didn't support an action, or feel it dangerous to your livelihood, how do you think you'd react to his methodology... Not good.

All current politics is lies, manipulations, exaggerations, character attacks and fainting flowers. At least he is trying to follow through on his promises, and unlike other Republicans, not backing down when challenged.

My issue isn't that people are upset by his actions, I understand that. My issue is they are upset without knowing what is actually happening, or actually being impacted.

The people detained at the airport who had valid green cards have a right to be pissed. Some gender neutral fuckwit in Bushwick? Not so much.

Here's a closer summation of what is actually happening, and why we should be FAR more concerned than we are:

Boston College professor's Facebook post on immigration ban goes viral – Metro

So? If it is a distraction event to allow him to pass other things more easily, then they are more politically adept than you think.

You can't have it both ways, they are either political foundlings flailing in the weeds, or the most smooth political operators on the planet.

Choose one, don't go pick the one that applies given your current "position"

I think Bannon is a diabolical piece of shit who has stated he wants to "destroy" all of our institutions. He's already claimed to be a Leninist. He's a not-so-subtle political operative, because it's becoming obvious what he's doing, worming his way into the NSC when he has ZERO qualifications for such a post.

Trump is his puppet. The strings go up to Bannon and Putin, clearly.

This doesn't worry you.....WHY?

because it is ridiculous and you are a drool dripping moron for believing any of it.

It's just as stupid as the Obama/Kenya crap.

So the Joint Chiefs being fired from the NSC, and a Breitbart news chief with white-supremacist leanings and a "blow up the government" philosophy being placed there doesn't scare you in the least?

I GUARANTEE Bannon running things on the NSC is good for no American. None. If you don't know that, you're stupid and naive in the extreme.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

No, you are the one that appears to be fighting the last war, as usual.

Fighting the last war? Guess where the San Bernardino shooters were from. Then tell me if Trump has a ban on that country.

Orlando shooting: Tell me where he was from, and whether we have a ban on that country.

It's not the past shooters that are an issue, its the ones in the future. and the countries on the list were identified by the OBAMA WHITE HOUSE as having serious issues.

This must be the first time in history that you think Obama was correct about anything. Except that Obama DIDN'T ban people from coming from those countries did he? He didn't overstep his authority and issue and unconstitutional EO based on religious prejudice. That would be Trump who just pissed off 1.8 billion Muslims.

That kind of karma comes back to bite you in the ass.

Oh and congratulations to Donnie on his botched SEAL raid. THAT sure didn't happen under Obama.

"Except that Obama DIDN'T ban people from coming from those countries did he?"

Nope, but he did halt immigration from Iraq for 6 moths in 2011


"He didn't overstep his authority and issue and unconstitutional EO based on religious prejudice."

Please point applicable parts of the Constitution where the President "overstep his authority". "Applicable" being the keyword here.

He didn't even "halt immigration" from Iraq, stupid.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
Former Obama administration official Jon Finer denied that any ban in Iraqi refugee admissions was put in place under Obama. “While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,” he wrote in Foreign Policy. “In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Uh-huh, WaPo never prints false of skewed information.

Try reading this. It even has links to pertinate articles

 

[GaryDog]

Fighting the last war? Guess where the San Bernardino shooters were from. Then tell me if Trump has a ban on that country.

Orlando shooting: Tell me where he was from, and whether we have a ban on that country.

It's not the past shooters that are an issue, its the ones in the future. and the countries on the list were identified by the OBAMA WHITE HOUSE as having serious issues.

This must be the first time in history that you think Obama was correct about anything. Except that Obama DIDN'T ban people from coming from those countries did he? He didn't overstep his authority and issue and unconstitutional EO based on religious prejudice. That would be Trump who just pissed off 1.8 billion Muslims.

That kind of karma comes back to bite you in the ass.

Oh and congratulations to Donnie on his botched SEAL raid. THAT sure didn't happen under Obama.

"Except that Obama DIDN'T ban people from coming from those countries did he?"

Nope, but he did halt immigration from Iraq for 6 moths in 2011


"He didn't overstep his authority and issue and unconstitutional EO based on religious prejudice."

Please point applicable parts of the Constitution where the President "overstep his authority". "Applicable" being the keyword here.

He didn't even "halt immigration" from Iraq, stupid.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
Former Obama administration official Jon Finer denied that any ban in Iraqi refugee admissions was put in place under Obama. “While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,” he wrote in Foreign Policy. “In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Uh-huh, WaPo never prints false of skewed information.

Try reading this. It even has links to pertinate articles

That's quoted from Foreignpolicy.com. The article is well-sourced, and you can visit all the links.

LoL @ Washington Post not being a reliable source. You are truly unhinged.

"Try reading this"? Did you mean to insert a link and you're just too fucking stupid to get it right?

 

[Slade3200]

I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about Trump and his surrogates. It was perhaps the biggest talking point during his campaign.

Ok, so they took some framework left by Obama and "improved" on it. Why would that make it such a big deal calling them incompetent?

There is just no point hiding behind Obama, given their insulting attacks and ZERO acknowledgement of smart or effective Foreign policy actions from his administration. It's obvious what they are trying to do, but it's counter productive. It's like saying Betty is the worst cook ever and then cooking a dinner using one of Betty's recipes and trying to gain credibility for its quality by citing that it is a Betty recipe. The IRONY is thick.

They would be better off keeping Obama name out of it and just justifying their decision for the reasons they made it.

When was the last time a current, new party administration has heaped praises on the previous, other party administration?

And in your example, one can say it isn't the Recipes', fault, Betty is just a shitty cook.

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

 

[martybegan]

All current politics is lies, manipulations, exaggerations, character attacks and fainting flowers. At least he is trying to follow through on his promises, and unlike other Republicans, not backing down when challenged.

My issue isn't that people are upset by his actions, I understand that. My issue is they are upset without knowing what is actually happening, or actually being impacted.

The people detained at the airport who had valid green cards have a right to be pissed. Some gender neutral fuckwit in Bushwick? Not so much.

Here's a closer summation of what is actually happening, and why we should be FAR more concerned than we are:

Boston College professor's Facebook post on immigration ban goes viral – Metro

So? If it is a distraction event to allow him to pass other things more easily, then they are more politically adept than you think.

You can't have it both ways, they are either political foundlings flailing in the weeds, or the most smooth political operators on the planet.

Choose one, don't go pick the one that applies given your current "position"

I think Bannon is a diabolical piece of shit who has stated he wants to "destroy" all of our institutions. He's already claimed to be a Leninist. He's a not-so-subtle political operative, because it's becoming obvious what he's doing, worming his way into the NSC when he has ZERO qualifications for such a post.

Trump is his puppet. The strings go up to Bannon and Putin, clearly.

This doesn't worry you.....WHY?

because it is ridiculous and you are a drool dripping moron for believing any of it.

It's just as stupid as the Obama/Kenya crap.

So the Joint Chiefs being fired from the NSC, and a Breitbart news chief with white-supremacist leanings and a "blow up the government" philosophy being placed there doesn't scare you in the least?

I GUARANTEE Bannon running things on the NSC is good for no American. None. If you don't know that, you're stupid and naive in the extreme.

You have to continue with that "white supremacist" thing, don't you? But you tempered it with the word "leanings" which means you know your are lying, you just like to keep using it because it fits your narrative.

I WANT the federal government's scope reduced, and more power returned to the States. You aren't scaring me with that stuff.

And they were not "fired" from it, they still have input to the President.

Also, Bannon's education and military service from wiki:

He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in urban planning and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. In 1985,[31] Bannon received a Master of Business Administration degree with honors from Harvard Business School.[32]

Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.[33]

 

[martybegan]

Ok, so they took some framework left by Obama and "improved" on it. Why would that make it such a big deal calling them incompetent?

There is just no point hiding behind Obama, given their insulting attacks and ZERO acknowledgement of smart or effective Foreign policy actions from his administration. It's obvious what they are trying to do, but it's counter productive. It's like saying Betty is the worst cook ever and then cooking a dinner using one of Betty's recipes and trying to gain credibility for its quality by citing that it is a Betty recipe. The IRONY is thick.

They would be better off keeping Obama name out of it and just justifying their decision for the reasons they made it.

When was the last time a current, new party administration has heaped praises on the previous, other party administration?

And in your example, one can say it isn't the Recipes', fault, Betty is just a shitty cook.

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

 

[Slade3200]

There is just no point hiding behind Obama, given their insulting attacks and ZERO acknowledgement of smart or effective Foreign policy actions from his administration. It's obvious what they are trying to do, but it's counter productive. It's like saying Betty is the worst cook ever and then cooking a dinner using one of Betty's recipes and trying to gain credibility for its quality by citing that it is a Betty recipe. The IRONY is thick.

They would be better off keeping Obama name out of it and just justifying their decision for the reasons they made it.

When was the last time a current, new party administration has heaped praises on the previous, other party administration?

And in your example, one can say it isn't the Recipes', fault, Betty is just a shitty cook.

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.

 

[GaryDog]

There is just no point hiding behind Obama, given their insulting attacks and ZERO acknowledgement of smart or effective Foreign policy actions from his administration. It's obvious what they are trying to do, but it's counter productive. It's like saying Betty is the worst cook ever and then cooking a dinner using one of Betty's recipes and trying to gain credibility for its quality by citing that it is a Betty recipe. The IRONY is thick.

They would be better off keeping Obama name out of it and just justifying their decision for the reasons they made it.

When was the last time a current, new party administration has heaped praises on the previous, other party administration?

And in your example, one can say it isn't the Recipes', fault, Betty is just a shitty cook.

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

An overbroad order, even in keeping with the executive powers, is STILL unconstitutional.

 

[GaryDog]

Here's a closer summation of what is actually happening, and why we should be FAR more concerned than we are:

Boston College professor's Facebook post on immigration ban goes viral – Metro

So? If it is a distraction event to allow him to pass other things more easily, then they are more politically adept than you think.

You can't have it both ways, they are either political foundlings flailing in the weeds, or the most smooth political operators on the planet.

Choose one, don't go pick the one that applies given your current "position"

I think Bannon is a diabolical piece of shit who has stated he wants to "destroy" all of our institutions. He's already claimed to be a Leninist. He's a not-so-subtle political operative, because it's becoming obvious what he's doing, worming his way into the NSC when he has ZERO qualifications for such a post.

Trump is his puppet. The strings go up to Bannon and Putin, clearly.

This doesn't worry you.....WHY?

because it is ridiculous and you are a drool dripping moron for believing any of it.

It's just as stupid as the Obama/Kenya crap.

So the Joint Chiefs being fired from the NSC, and a Breitbart news chief with white-supremacist leanings and a "blow up the government" philosophy being placed there doesn't scare you in the least?

I GUARANTEE Bannon running things on the NSC is good for no American. None. If you don't know that, you're stupid and naive in the extreme.

You have to continue with that "white supremacist" thing, don't you? But you tempered it with the word "leanings" which means you know your are lying, you just like to keep using it because it fits your narrative.

I WANT the federal government's scope reduced, and more power returned to the States. You aren't scaring me with that stuff.

And they were not "fired" from it, they still have input to the President.

Also, Bannon's education and military service from wiki:

He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in urban planning and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. In 1985,[31] Bannon received a Master of Business Administration degree with honors from Harvard Business School.[32]

Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.[33]

LMAO, you don't think Bannon is a white supremacist? You must be assuming he had no input at Brietbart then?

And I missed where on that CV he has experience with intelligence operations that would even SNIFF the capabilities of the Joint Chiefs.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Considering they still have fighting going on in country, no they have not.

So why is Trump willing to let Syrian Christians in?

Who knows? and it isn't an automatic "in", they just get to go to the front of the line, which will probably be the same situation when the moratorium is lifted in 90 days.

He's giving Christians special privileges because it's a MUSLIM ban.

Christian can't come in either.

"Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions... to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality."

PROTECTING the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States | U.S. Virtual Embassy Iran

Wrong:

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution....

'Religous minority', as in Christians, but explicitly NOT Muslims because by definition the countries listed are Muslim majority countries.

Ok, you "kinda" got me. The pertinent word here, however, is "INCLUDING". That subsection allows anybody with cause to by-pass the moratorium on a case-by-case basis. So, a non-Christian that has "national interest", at the discretion of Secretary of State and Homeland Security, will be allowed in.

Are you assuming that the decision to let in will be made without evidence of "interest" and a stringent background check? I don't think that State and Homeland would be so incompetent as to allow otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

When was the last time a current, new party administration has heaped praises on the previous, other party administration?

And in your example, one can say it isn't the Recipes', fault, Betty is just a shitty cook.

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.

What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?

All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.

We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.

 

[martybegan]

When was the last time a current, new party administration has heaped praises on the previous, other party administration?

And in your example, one can say it isn't the Recipes', fault, Betty is just a shitty cook.

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

An overbroad order, even in keeping with the executive powers, is STILL unconstitutional.

The worst case was it was counter to current law when it came to Green Cards, it was not, and is not unconstitutional.

The Green Card issue has been rectified.

 

[Slade3200]

I wouldn't bring Betty up in the conversation. Trump isn't praising Obama, he is hiding behind his actions to try and silence his opposers. People are critiquing Trump for not including Saudi Araba and Pakistan in his EO and he is responding that these countries were selected by Obama. I get why he is doing that but it is just laughable giving his past statements about Obamas foreign policy. Do you really not see the irony in this?

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.

What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?

All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.

We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.

How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.

 

[martybegan]

So? If it is a distraction event to allow him to pass other things more easily, then they are more politically adept than you think.

You can't have it both ways, they are either political foundlings flailing in the weeds, or the most smooth political operators on the planet.

Choose one, don't go pick the one that applies given your current "position"

I think Bannon is a diabolical piece of shit who has stated he wants to "destroy" all of our institutions. He's already claimed to be a Leninist. He's a not-so-subtle political operative, because it's becoming obvious what he's doing, worming his way into the NSC when he has ZERO qualifications for such a post.

Trump is his puppet. The strings go up to Bannon and Putin, clearly.

This doesn't worry you.....WHY?

because it is ridiculous and you are a drool dripping moron for believing any of it.

It's just as stupid as the Obama/Kenya crap.

So the Joint Chiefs being fired from the NSC, and a Breitbart news chief with white-supremacist leanings and a "blow up the government" philosophy being placed there doesn't scare you in the least?

I GUARANTEE Bannon running things on the NSC is good for no American. None. If you don't know that, you're stupid and naive in the extreme.

You have to continue with that "white supremacist" thing, don't you? But you tempered it with the word "leanings" which means you know your are lying, you just like to keep using it because it fits your narrative.

I WANT the federal government's scope reduced, and more power returned to the States. You aren't scaring me with that stuff.

And they were not "fired" from it, they still have input to the President.

Also, Bannon's education and military service from wiki:

He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in urban planning and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. In 1985,[31] Bannon received a Master of Business Administration degree with honors from Harvard Business School.[32]

Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.[33]

LMAO, you don't think Bannon is a white supremacist? You must be assuming he had no input at Brietbart then?

And I missed where on that CV he has experience with intelligence operations that would even SNIFF the capabilities of the Joint Chiefs.

No, he isn't. Just like you idiots have downgraded bigot and sexist to "not a progressive quacking duck" you have now defined as white supremacist anyone to the right of Mitt Romney. It's a lie and you know it.

So what? He still has the JC as advisers, and they still have access to him, probably even more so once the Obama drones get replaced by Generals more in line with Trumps views.

 

[martybegan]

Calling out his opponents is not tying to silence them. And don't go with the AG who got canned, she's his employee, and she decided to publicly defy him, Out she goes, don't let the door hit her ass on the way out.

For too many years people on the right have been afraid of responding to attacks like this, that time is over.

And I'll deal with some irony if he gets some results out of it. Again, if there were actual constitutional issues I would be concerned. i was concerned over the Green Card issue, but they fixed that. And what's best the fixed it without giving in on other things, or getting all apologetic. It was "whoops, our bad, fixed now" and that was it.

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.

What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?

All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.

We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.

How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.

Her statement:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.

It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.

 

[Darkwind]

What kind of shit "MUSLIM BAN" is this when 87% of the world's Muslims are still free to enter the USA with PROPER PAPERWORK?

If 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS can enter the USA, Trump doesn't know how to do a ban.

so true-----it is a HOSTILE COUNTRY BAN-------nothing new

Presumably ALL of the countries that contained the 9/11 hijackers, the shoebomber, et al, are NOT hostile?

That's what you're saying?

No, he is saying that the criteria for the temporary restriction has not been met by those other nations.

But you know that.

 

[Slade3200]

I didn't bring up the AG, but since you did... The job of the AG is to enforce the LAW, not pander to the president. Have you seen the clip that is floating around of Sessions interviewing Yates at her confirmation hearing? (See below)

Fact is Yates said that the Executive Order was constitutional in writing but after it was enacted she saw it unconstitutional IN ACTION, and she was not able to go defend it. I have no objections to her being replaced, I get it, but I think it should have been done in private and not publicized as much. While Trump the right to replace her I think it inappropriate for then to say she "betrayed" the department, and I would find it very dangerous if he fires anybody who disagrees with him, so I hope this isn't a start of a trend. It was her job to enforce the Law, and when the law was executed she interpreted it as unconstitutional, so she did what she needed to do.

Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.

yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.

You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.

What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?

All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.

We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.

How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.

Her statement:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.

It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.

You just made her argument... She said that the order passed the OLC in the narrow scope of the written law. She then went on to explain that as AG it was her job to not only consider the law but also outside factors like statements from the Administration and implementation of the order. You said yourself that the Green card issue that arose, YOU felt, was unconstitutional. There were court cases filed and judges ruling against the ban, calling the ACTIONS taken as unconstitutional. In light of such a sloppy role out, which DID infringe on people rights, is it really such a surprise that Yates reacted the way she did as the one responsible to defend this order? I sure would have step down or deemed it indefensible had I been in her shoes.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Trump has a phone and a pen. Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won. Snowflakes are welcome to come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back.

POTUS 44said that same thing about himself. Man, was that President accurate or what?

 

[Slade3200]

Trump has a phone and a pen. Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won. Snowflakes are welcome to come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back.

POTUS 44said that same thing about himself. Man, was that President accurate or what?

Captain Random strikes again