US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Tchocky]

Hey Tak. All well?

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Are you aware of the fact that the article you linked to states directly that this claim is 100% false? It even says so at the top of the very page.

Oh,, did you check the rest of them,, it was this one I click on the wrong one sorry.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washing...change/5429142

http://search.myway.com/search/GGmai...=1486235142489

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Are you aware of the fact that the article you linked to states directly that this claim is 100% false? It even says so at the top of the very page.

since you are fact checkin did she actually say this..

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Following up the racism of the past few days with misogyny. You're a real keeper.

didn't know a religion was a race,,, Islam is just as much a political idiotology as a religion,, so it races to protect our selves now ,,nice

[Catfish]

Judge Robart blocks Trump's immigation ban.
On Saturday, normal air service resumed following Judge Robart's decision, which Trump blasted in a series of tweets as "ridiculous."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/u...bart.html?_r=0

So, is or was Trump's decision for the ban constitutional, or not. And what power have judges to stop his decrees?
What does the US constitution say about Trump's ban. Is it even legal.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by yubba

since you are fact checkin did she actually say this..

By all accounts, no, she did not actually state that. You're 0 for 2 today. Anything else?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Hey Tak. All well?

Great seeing you Tchocky. Hope you're doing better than ever.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by yubba

Oh,, did you check the rest of them,, it was this one I click on the wrong one sorry.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washing...change/5429142

http://search.myway.com/search/GGmai...=1486235142489

You're trying to rebunk your already debunked claim? Get out of here. Don't waste my time.

[mapuc]

According to some Danish expert on US-politics, Trump could have made this decree without consulting his Minister of Justice or some other with expertise in that area.

He said Obama made the same mistake some years ago, when he made a decree that gave a million illegal aliens some rights but a Federal judge in Texas said it was against the law.

Markus

[vienna]

Originally Posted by yubba

Yes you ,, could even use this before you speak out against Trump so you do look foolish..

http://www.infowars.com/75-times-oba...ng-presidency/

Infowars as a 'credible' source?

BTW, fixed your post for you...

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Are you aware of the fact that the article you linked to states directly that this claim is 100% false? It even says so at the top of the very page.

1. Past experience has proven he is not prone to really reading anything

2. The lack of facts has never stopped him...or Trump...

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

By all accounts, no, she did not actually state that. You're 0 for 2 today. Anything else?

Gotta give it to Yubba: he's nothing if not consistent...



<O>

[yubba]

Originally Posted by vienna

Infowars as a 'credible' source?

BTW, fixed your post for you...



1. Past experience has proven he is not prone to really reading anything

2. The lack of facts has never stopped him...or Trump...



Gotta give it to Yubba: he's nothing if not consistent...



<O>

Then explain why Trump won..If Info wars and Drudge wasn't creditable,, why are they a threat to the liberal left ???. It is sad that I have to go to Info Wars to get the news,, since the national mainstream media is the propaganda lap dog of the liberal left,, I make mistakes to give you Hope and make you feel elite since that's all you got.

[vienna]

..., I make mistakes to give you Hope and make you feel elite since that's all you got.

If your mistakes are to give me hope, then, by God, you are the greatest hope-giver in the history of mankind...

As far as being elite, I'm just a guy with a general high school education, no college at all, got my first job when I was 12 years old, started working full-time straight out of high school, and aside from a few side adventures, have nothing to really distinguish me as no more than just another working Joe; so, no I am not elite and do not consider myself so; I have, however, kept my mind open, sought to learn as much as possible, from both sides, about topics of interest and try, as much as possible, to know the facts before I cite them, and if I am wrong and stand corrected, I admit to such and will apologize as needed and to whom needed. I am always willing to be persuaded to new ideas when they are presented logically and with supportive verifiable facts. In my life, I have admitted I'm wrong, more times than I'd care to admit; I have been wrong in the past and, most likely will be wrong on more things in the future; I just hope I can continue to be, at least, a person who has the guts to be admittedly wrong and own up to it...

I put on my pants just like any other person, both legs at once, and, if I wasn't so humble, I'd boast about my modesty...

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

No, that is false. That journalist either does not know how the Constitution works and/or is making a political statement.

The President derives his power from the Constitution. A EO is just an expression of the President's power so one President cannot bind his successor with an EO. Trump is free to rescind and replace every EO ever put out by his predecessor and there is no formality involved.

Actually, an EO has no expiration date, unless an expiration date is explicitly given in an original or amended EO, and remains in force until it is revoked or superseded by either a subsequent EO explicitly revoking or superseding the order as a whole, an Act Of Congress voiding the EO, or a finding by the SCOTUS of either unconstitutionality or illegality of the EO in question. EOs may be amended by a POTUS subsequent to the original EO. The EO of the process for EOs, promulgated by JFK in Executive Order 11030 on 19 June 1962 was the latest in a lengthy series of EOs on process over many years and, aside from minor amendments to make the language regarding changing department titles, resetting of document margins, etc., has not been substantially changed or amended as to the process of EOs. Given that the EO has, in fact, been amended since the JFK promulgation by subsequent POTUSes, it would be reasonable to deduce those Presidents were knowledgeable of the EO process and did conform to the established process. So, there is a formality and legally binding process in place and, until Trump and his associates decide process "not good, bad" and issue an EO to revoke, he is legally bound to follow the set process and, in the case of the travel ban, and, more likely than not, most, if not all of his EOs, he is is violation of laws and regulations...

Executive Order 11030 and codification in the National Archives:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...der/11030.html

Wikisource article on Executive Order 11030 with annotations on subsequent amendments:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11030

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Now on the Legality of Trump's EO, it is true that the Courts are the ultimate arbitrer, but the Constitution has been around long enough and there have been enough judicial decisions to have a pretty good idea of what POTUS can and cannot do.

The Constitution grants to POTUS the executive power, he is commander of the armed forces, he has the duty to protect the USA. The Courts have determined that POTUS has nearly absolute jurisdiction on all matters outside of the USA and dealing with foreign govts, unless the Constitution specifically carves out that power to Congress, i.e. ratifying Treaties.

Under Obama, we saw an expansion of that power. Obama greatly expanded the Drone program which lead to the targeted killing of around 8,000 foreign nationals deemed by POTUS to be a threat to national security. Now, we know there were also many innocent civilians killed, men, women and children, from several hundreds or several thousands, depending on the source.

Obama also determined he had the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad which were deemed to be a security risk and he exercised that power a few time.

There was some grumbling in the Press over those actions, but no one seriously questioned that POTUS has very broad powers to act against what he perceives to be a security threat.

Obviously, if POTUS has the power to kill foreign nationals, he also has the power to stop them from entering U.S. territory as Courts have consistently ruled.

Now on the recent challenges, there are many grounds, but the only one that has a real shot is that it is a disguised "Muslim Ban" and therefore discrimination on religious grounds. Personally, I think it has very little chance of success, but let's game it out. Let's assume courts ultimately assume that the order is unconstitutional because it discriminates on religious grounds, what would that mean?

Basically, the Courts for the first time ever would be recognizing that foreign nationals have an inherent right to demand entry to the USA. There are an estimated 5 million Syrian refugees, let's assume all apply to enter the USA and all are refused. In theory, they could then apply to U.S. courts on the grounds that they are being refused entry on religious grounds, the onus would then be on the U.S. govt to show bona fide reasons why they are not being let in.

In effect, instead of the onus being on refugees/immigrants to show why they should be let in, the onus would shift to the U.S. government to show why they should be kept out. So the long term effect would be that the U.S. governement would lose control over the border.

Anti-Trumpers are so determined to stop whatever Trump is doing now, that they don't stop to think what the long term effect will be.

Actually, the arguments against the ban have been not only based on Constitutional, e.g., 5th and 14th Amendment concerns, but, also, an adjudicated Federal law from 1965 explicitly banning discrimination based on nationality:

http://www.newsweek.com/opponents-be...ion-ban-551934

The above article has cite-links for the arguments they present...

Originally Posted by Rockstar

As reasonable as it may have seemed to you that Yates lack of action and defience should have just been ignored. Her job was in the executive branch of government her boss is the president. Her purpose was to serve the executive branch, to give advice and enforce the policy of the federal government. Sessions appointment, mid-terms, or what political rags and hacks might say down the road doesn't have jack squat do with what happens to her. Yates's defience, taking matters into her own hands and not doing her job should be much more concerning to everyone than anything else at hand. The checks and balances in place to prevent her from doing what she did again was to fire her on the spot, and rightfully so.

Now if she would have done her job she could have watched the process unfold as it should. Federal judges in the lower courts giving their opinion on the matter. That is how the ball gets rolling for this issue to go to before the SCOTUS to look at the legalities of the immigrtion ban.

When I said Yates was doing her job, it was not an implicit negation of the ban; it was intended to express the belief the duty of any Cabinet member is not just to be a "rubber stamp" or a "Yes man". Cabinet members are there to advise the POTUS on their views as to the legality, practicality, or impact of a Presidential decision. There is nothing in the law commanding/demanding a Cabinet member to blindly and without objection obey or carry out what they deem to be an unlawful order. Even the UCMJ makes obedience mandatory only, and explicitly, when an order is lawful. Barring any legal compulsion, any Cabinet member is free to express their views and opinions; and they're duty is not to defend the decisions of any President; their duty is solely to do what they swore to in their oath: support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President of the United States is not the Constitution; the Constitution is the Constitution and it is far greater and more important than any President...

On the subject of Cabinet members dissenting from the views of the President, I would point to the recent confirmation hearings where not a few of the Cabinet nominees have expressed views and opinions contradicting Trump's own utterances and beliefs; are they to be denied their seat at the table?; or are they just lying just to get the job, because, if so, committing perjury under oath before Congress is very worrisome indeed...

Should Yates have resigned? Maybe yes, maybe no. She was on her way out the next day, anyway, and resigning would have been an empty act; if her desire was to underscore the perceived illegality of the Trump order, than she did what she thought best, and she was fired for it. What Trump did, on the other hand, was strategically and politically idiotic and symptomatic of the ails of the Trump administration: ill-thought-out actions followed by very poor execution. Those guys need to really do their homework and really need to know how to properly and successfully carry out a process. Right now it looks like a middle school team trying to play an NFL team...

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Where? I don't do Twitter, I only learn about that on news sites.

Join the party; I have refused to join Twitter, Facebook, or any of the other social networks du jour that keep popping up. When people ask me for my Facebook or other account name and I say I don't have any, they look at me like I'm some sort of cave dweller; the downside is, if you are looking for work, the HR systems are now set up so the lack of social media connections is viewed as a liability and some places won't even consider you if you don't have some type social net presence such as LinkedIn; I don't mind being turned down because I don't have the necessary work experience or education, but it sure is galling to lose out on a job because I don't post selfies or pictures of what I'm having for dinner...

Originally Posted by August

Well it can't be worse than the plane it was on previously.

The next few years will most likely prove that statement wrong (if Trump actually lasts a few more years...)...



<O>

[yubba]

Originally Posted by vienna

If your mistakes are to give me hope, then, by God, you are the greatest hope-giver in the history of mankind...

As far as being elite, I'm just a guy with a general high school education, no college at all, got my first job when I was 12 years old, started working full-time straight out of high school, and aside from a few side adventures, have nothing to really distinguish me as no more than just another working Joe; so, no I am not elite and do not consider myself so; I have, however, kept my mind open, sought to learn as much as possible, from both sides, about topics of interest and try, as much as possible, to know the facts before I cite them, and if I am wrong and stand corrected, I admit to such and will apologize as needed and to whom needed. I am always willing to be persuaded to new ideas when they are presented logically and with supportive verifiable facts. In my life, I have admitted I'm wrong, more times than I'd care to admit;[QOUTE] <O>

Ha,, you don't have a problem ridiculing anyone that doesn't see your point of view especially me






Actually, an EO has no expiration date, unless an expiration date is explicitly given in an original or amended EO, and remains in force until it is revoked or superseded by either a subsequent EO explicitly revoking or superseding the order as a whole, an Act Of Congress voiding the EO, or a finding by the SCOTUS of either unconstitutionality or illegality of the EO in question. EOs may be amended by a POTUS subsequent to the original EO. The EO of the process for EOs, promulgated by JFK in Executive Order 11030 on 19 June 1962 was the latest in a lengthy series of EOs on process over many years and, aside from minor amendments to make the language regarding changing department titles, resetting of document margins, etc., has not been substantially changed or amended as to the process of EOs. Given that the EO has, in fact, been amended since the JFK promulgation by subsequent POTUSes, it would be reasonable to deduce those Presidents were knowledgeable of the EO process and did conform to the established process. So, there is a formality and legally binding process in place and, until Trump and his associates decide process "not good, bad" and issue an EO to revoke, he is legally bound to follow the set process and, in the case of the travel ban, and, more likely than not, most, if not all of his EOs, he is is violation of laws and regulations.. <O> [QOUTE]

EOs cannot be consrewed as law,, only congress can make laws,, the president cannot pick and chose what laws he is or is not going to enforce or pick and chose who he is going to or not enforce them on ,, that's why the left lost..

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2016/05/11/...u-should-care/




Actually, the arguments against the ban have been not only based on Constitutional, e.g., 5th and 14th Amendment concerns, but, also, an adjudicated Federal law from 1965 explicitly banning discrimination based on nationality:[QOUTE]

you sure don't want to acknowledge this,, the 1952 law banning Islam in America.

https://stumpknocker77.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/4198/



The next few years will most likely prove that statement wrong (if Trump actually lasts a few more years...)...



<O>

Well it took 8 long years to prove that progressive liberal communism/socialism/marxism/fascism/ anti capitalism,,, doesn't work in America,, just because I missed the classes on how unicorns crap free stuff doesn't make me less informed than you..

and by the you didn't answer the question ,, explaining why Trump won,, with you sighting that Info Wars was not a creditable news source,, instead you rambled on ,, I guess you like to hear yourself speak.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by yubba

Well it took 8 long years to prove that progressive liberal communism/socialism/marxism/fascism/ anti capitalism,,, doesn't work in America,, just because I missed the classes on how unicorns crap free stuff doesn't make me less informed than you..

And yet America is somehow still there.

Obviously we need to work harder to kill it.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by yubba

Well it took 8 long years to prove that progressive liberal communism/socialism/marxism/fascism/ anti capitalism,,, doesn't work in America,, just because I missed the classes on how unicorns crap free stuff doesn't make me less informed than you..

and by the you didn't answer the question ,, explaining why Trump won,, with you sighting that Info Wars was not a creditable news source,, instead you rambled on ,, I guess you like to hear yourself speak.

As for rambling, well, I would have thought you enjoyed rambling since your guy Trump is the undisputed King of Stream of Unconsciousness; the disarray of his speeches and addresses thus far have been a mess of starts and fits, unfinished sentences (much less thoughts) and irrelevant verbiage that seems to mirror his own mental disarray. Compared to Trump, even GW Bush is a Lincolnesque orator...

Trump won the Presidency because he and his cronies did what all the other candidates do: they game the Electoral College vote. It is just simple manipulation and has been going on for a long time. Sometimes the manipulations work and sometimes not: in 2012, Obama won 61.7% of the electoral vote in spite of the machinations of Cheney, Rove and other GOP operatives; I remember well the furious faces and words of Cheney and Rove in Election Night interviews when they realized their efforts had failed and failed badly. If you want to use the Electoral College vote as a measure of the strength of the winning candidate, in 2008, Obama had 67.8% of the Electoral votes, in 2012, Obama had 61.7% of the Electoral vote; in 2016, Trump had 56.5% of the Electoral vote; using Electoral college votes as the yardstick, Obama was a more successful candidate in both his runs for office than Trump; in addition Obama got over 50% of the popular vote in both his runs while Trump could only muster 46.0% of the popular vote, behind Clinton's 48.1% total. If you really want to use the Electoral College as being definitive, then Nixon in 1972, must have been areal popular candidate, loved by all, because he got a whopping 97.7% of the Electoral vote; his popular vote, running against a very weak DEM candidate (McGovern), got him 60.7% of the popular vote...

The fact does remain, however, that the majority of the actual votes cast by actual individual voters expressing their actual preference were cast against Trump; he couldn't even beat Clinton in the popular vote; the actual majority of the voting people have spoken: anyone but Trump. This explains why the Inauguration was so sparsely attended, even with free tickets. I know Little Donnie was really hurt that most of the people just didn't give a monkey's about his little soiree, but, hey, he should have expected it; he's just not popular and it is his fault alone...

About answering questions, I know I've been waiting a long time for you to actually give specific answers to specific questions posited by myself and any number of other participants on this forum, you know, answers with actual, specific, provable facts. Instead what you provide is poorly executed deflection and sputtering gibberish that you try to pass off as fact. If there really was any credible substance to your arguments, you would be able to better defend them than by running away and hiding behind trite regurgitations of the whacked theory of the week. Do some research, read some material from a viewpoint other than Hannity, Jones, Bannon, et al. At least the others who post here do try to support their arguments with substance rather than slime.For them, even if I might agree with some of their views, I have solid respect; for you, not so much...

I going to ask you a question and I would like you to give a serious, specific answer: Why should any reasonable American citizen put their trust and confidence in a petty, lying egoist who has demonstrated not even the least ability to even adequately manage not just his own behavior and impulses but, worse, not even the management of the US government? I have more than answered your past questions and comments and with good solid data; it would be only fair for you to answer just one of mine, if you actually can manage even that simple a task...




<O>