What's new
By:

The Inevitability of Impeachment

fishonjazz said:
I have yet to see any of the Trump apologists explain why Saudi Arabia wasn't included.
Click to expand...

According to Reince Priebus (weird name btw), they only included the countries that Congress and the Obama administration already approved because they wanted this to occur quickly, and without debate about the countries. He also added that they still can add more countries, and will probably choose to do so.
 
fishonjazz said:
Looking at comments from some of the articles about the ban I see tons of comments by trump supporters claiming (and truly believing) that obama already did the exact same thing as Trump is doing now.
Click to expand...

Reading comments on articles is a sure fire way to see all the crazy people in the world.
 
JustTheTip said:
According to Reince Priebus (weird name btw), they only included the countries that Congress and the Obama administration already approved because they wanted this to occur quickly, and without debate about the countries. He also added that they still can add more countries, and will probably choose to do so.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. That makes sense.
 
JustTheTip said:
Reading comments on articles is a sure fire way to see all the crazy people in the world.
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of trump supporters are crazy. Makes sense really.
 
fishonjazz said:
Seems like a lot of trump supporters are crazy. Makes sense really.
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of people are crazy, regardless of political affiliation.

People are acting like our country is ending because something like 120 people got detained at an airport. I don't like all the parts of it, but a little perspective is needed sometimes too.
 
Last edited:
JustTheTip said:
Seems like a lot of people are peach, regardless of political affiliation.

People are acting like our country is ending because something like 120 people got detained at an airport. I don't like all the parts of it, but a little perspective is needed sometimes too.
Click to expand...

I've read a lot of commie lit, really. Trotsky, Lenin, and such. theoreticians on political operations. Our media is behaving like a Trotskyite "cell" hoping to whip up some revolutionary cataclysm. It's probably just sheer hatred for Trump, but hey what do I know. I'm a mushroom.
 
JustTheTip said:
According to Reince Priebus (weird name btw), they only included the countries that Congress and the Obama administration already approved because they wanted this to occur quickly, and without debate about the countries. He also added that they still can add more countries, and will probably choose to do so.
Click to expand...

Seriously his name sounds like a wizard from Harry Potter. Probably a clerk for voldemort.
 
Trump's firing of the Acting AG calls into question just how much Trump respects the rule of law. And look at the question Sen. Sessions, soon to be our next AG, asked her during her confirmation hearings. How very, very ironic!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...feeb8e9b69b432bc7e09d/?utm_term=.79c5825cc600

"THE BIG IDEA: Back in 2015, when the idea of Donald Trump in the Oval Office seemed far-fetched, Jeff Sessions wanted to know whether Sally Yates was willing to stand up to the president.

“You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about,” the Alabama senator told her during her confirmation hearing to become deputy attorney general. “Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?' But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?”

“Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has the obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates said.

Sessions, who will soon be attorney general, circled back to the issue: “Like any CEO, with a law firm — sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO: 'Mr. CEO, you can't do that. Don't do that. We'll get us sued. It's going to be in violation of the law. You'll regret it, please.' No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that's the duty of the attorney general's office?”

Yates assured him: “I do believe that that's the duty of the attorney general's office, to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.”

Just as it turns out Trump literally meant what he said on the campaign trail and planned to follow through, last night Yates was true to her word. The acting attorney general ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend his immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world. She was promptly fired."
 
Red said:
Trump's firing of the Acting AG calls into question just how much Trump respects the rule of law. And look at the question Sen. Sessions, soon to be our next AG, asked her during her confirmation hearings. How very, very ironic!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...feeb8e9b69b432bc7e09d/?utm_term=.79c5825cc600

"THE BIG IDEA: Back in 2015, when the idea of Donald Trump in the Oval Office seemed far-fetched, Jeff Sessions wanted to know whether Sally Yates was willing to stand up to the president.

“You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about,” the Alabama senator told her during her confirmation hearing to become deputy attorney general. “Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?' But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?”

“Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has the obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates said.

Sessions, who will soon be attorney general, circled back to the issue: “Like any CEO, with a law firm — sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO: 'Mr. CEO, you can't do that. Don't do that. We'll get us sued. It's going to be in violation of the law. You'll regret it, please.' No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that's the duty of the attorney general's office?”

Yates assured him: “I do believe that that's the duty of the attorney general's office, to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.”

Just as it turns out Trump literally meant what he said on the campaign trail and planned to follow through, last night Yates was true to her word. The acting attorney general ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend his immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world. She was promptly fired."
Click to expand...

Yates declined for moral issue, not legal. Quite a difference.
 
JustTheTip said:
Yates declined for moral issue, not legal. Quite a difference.
Click to expand...

"Earlier on Monday, Yates ordered Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world, declaring in a memo that she is not convinced the order is lawful.

Yates wrote that, as the leader of the Justice Department, she must ensure that the department’s position is “legally defensible” and “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,” Yates wrote. She wrote that “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.”

https://buffalonews.com/2017/01/30/...ed-declining-defend-trumps-immigration-order/

That sounds like her reasoning was based on her opinion of its legality....
 
Red said:
"Earlier on Monday, Yates ordered Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world, declaring in a memo that she is not convinced the order is lawful.

Yates wrote that, as the leader of the Justice Department, she must ensure that the department’s position is “legally defensible” and “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,” Yates wrote. She wrote that “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.”

https://buffalonews.com/2017/01/30/...ed-declining-defend-trumps-immigration-order/

That sounds like her reasoning was based on her opinion of its legality....
Click to expand...

If she didn't think it was legal, I would imagine she would've found a reason for it not to be. She's a pretty qualified lawyer...and yet, we have nothing from her saying this is illegal. Read between the lines man.
 
Here is the problem I have with what is going on with the state of our political discourse. We are so caught up in us vs them that we are missing what is really going on while Trump and Bannon are starting a new us vs them war (or an old one if you fancy). They are nationalists, and calling anyone who disagrees with them globalists with a secret agenda. Now I don't really have a problem with Nationalists, historically speaking, but my problem is that there is a time and a place for Nationalism, and a kind of nationalism that works, and many that don't.

Nationalism, in my opinion, only works for the good of the people if the identity is an inclusive one, and not an exclusive one. Bannon, and to a somewhat lesser extent Trump, have expressed Nationalistic views that are exclusive, that favor rich white males. Don't believe me, just look up Bannon's history, it's very clear.

Teddy Roosevelt was a nationalist, but he also was a president to all of the people within our borders. If Trump is to succeed as a nationalist president, he has some thinking and changing to do regarding inclusivity of all americans, otherwise he will fail miserably.

Unfortunately, for a ton of americans, he has already disqualified himself to be respected in their minds.
 
b_line said:
Here is the problem I have with what is going on with the state of our political discourse. We are so caught up in us vs them that we are missing what is really going on while Trump and Bannon are starting a new us vs them war (or an old one if you fancy). They are nationalists, and calling anyone who disagrees with them globalists with a secret agenda. Now I don't really have a problem with Nationalists, historically speaking, but my problem is that there is a time and a place for Nationalism, and a kind of nationalism that works, and many that don't.

Nationalism, in my opinion, only works for the good of the people if the identity is an inclusive one, and not an exclusive one. Bannon, and to a somewhat lesser extent Trump, have expressed Nationalistic views that are exclusive, that favor rich white males. Don't believe me, just look up Bannon's history, it's very clear.

Teddy Roosevelt was a nationalist, but he also was a president to all of the people within our borders. If Trump is to succeed as a nationalist president, he has some thinking and changing to do regarding inclusivity of all americans, otherwise he will fail miserably.

Unfortunately, for a ton of americans, he has already disqualified himself to be respected in their minds.
Click to expand...

Great post b_line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top