monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

One thing I will put people on ignore for is outright lying, and I've just put Olivier5 on ignore for that reason.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Run away, run as fast as you can.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

If you had a heart, you'd know what "evil" is, and what it isn't.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

That's the limited vocabulary and the repetitive nature of your posts I was talking about.

All your lies about me do is show that you're a liar.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

If you had a heart, you'd know what "evil" is, and what it isn't.

I do know what evil is. I challenge evil in my posts all the time.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

The rest at USA Today

Quote:

Through all the defeats, Trump was forced to play on what amounts to his opponents' home turf: The 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, is dominated by President Bill Clinton's nominees. The 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is dominated by President Barack Obama's nominees. All 13 judges on those two courts who voted to strike down the revised travel ban were appointed by Democratic presidents.

By contrast, the Supreme Court includes five justices named by Republican presidents and four by Democrats. Chief Justice John Roberts is a strong proponent of executive authority, particularly in foreign affairs. Alito has spent his entire career working for the government. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2015 immigration case that a "legitimate and bona fide" reason for denying entry to the United States can pass muster. Gorsuch is a stickler for the written text of statutes — and banning Muslims isn't mentioned in Trump's executive order. Thomas is the most conservative of all.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Actually, you serve it more often than not.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
“The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’”

In words which could not be any plainer/clearer, the shit4brains, government cheese-eating leftists and demmunists are willing to do irreparable harm to the United States in order to achieve their objectives of destabilizing the United states by importing terrorists and gaining control over the United States by importing leftist voting blocks.

What a bunch of pigs....

Exactly. Not only "willing to," but they have actively been causing "irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security" for months now.

And damn proud of it, too!

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Actually, you serve it more often than not.

That is incorrect. I consistently defend good and challenge evil in my posts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I suspect that is a claim nearly every poster here would make. Despite that they disagree and dispute rather consistently.

2 Replies

@snood,

That last meme is a hoot, Obama and Company spent at least 6 or 7 years blaming the prior admin even after they had won re-election. It was never the fault of the party who had the majority the first 2 years of Obama's term.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

That last meme is a hoot, Obama and Company spent at least 6 or 7 years blaming the prior admin even after they had won re-election. It was never the fault of the party who had the majority the first 2 years of Obama's term.

Considering Obama inherited GW Bush economic financial crises and his wars, Obama and everyone else had a right to blame the prior administration. On the other hand, Trump has inherited a fairly good economy (need for improvement in poorer folks) and is doing his best to ruin it with his stupid tax cuts (budget/GOP health care plan) for wealthiest in the land and we are still dealing with the unnecessary war of Iraq and it's consequences.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
I consistently defend good and challenge evil in my posts.

I suspect that is a claim nearly every poster here would make. Despite that they disagree and dispute rather consistently.

Not me, eh, George. I consistently challenge good and defend evil in my posts.

Just ask any cheese-eater, ya know?

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Luckily, somehow I'm able to understand you very well.

As I lay on my cheap cot in a decrepit nursing home, my gaunt frame poking through my wrinkled sagging skin, eyes rheumy and unfocused, alone and forgotten by all, this thought will give me comfort, "One man, Finn, understood me..."

(Don't spoil it by telling me that the "you" referred to all cheese-eaters.)

It wasn't meant to, but if, in your last days on earth it brings you comfort, than far be it for me to rob you of what might be your last and only source of solace for wasting your life entranced by leftist fantasies. What a heartless churl, I'd be if I explained to a frail old man the real meaning of my comment.

Now you can go gentle into that good night hightor my friend.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

For about the umpteenth goddam time, the point is that the Russians (meaning hackers allied with the Russian military and likely with the full knowledge of Putin) attempted on multiple occasions to infiltrate state election boards and released, after a phishing attack, damaging e-mails from the DNC. There is, at this time and possibly never, no proof of "collusion" but the extensive contact between Trump campaign personnel (who denied, lied, but eventually "remembered" these incidents) and Russian officials raise ancillary questions as to what the nature of these contacts was really about.

Gosh, such apparent outrage. You seem vexed.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

As hoped and predicted.

Ignoring the plain text of the order in favor of divining ulterior motives from campaign rhetoric and tweets, was clearly the MO of judges in search of an outcome they desired rather than the outcome the law unquestionably led to.

Quote:

“The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority’s adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds,” wrote dissenting 4th Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer.

And they did. Even those who wanted to squeeze out a compromised exception.

A victory not only for Trump, but for the Executive Branch and rational jurisprudence.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

And Ossoff's loss was not so bad?

The goal of the Opposition was not to tone done the EO, it was to kill it and deliver a punishing defeat to Trump. By all the arguments made against it by the Opposition (including some federal judges) the USSC has now approved a "ban on Muslims." Not so bad?

But, like poor Old Man hightor, take comfort wherever you can find it

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Ignoring the plain text of the order in favor of divining ulterior motives from campaign rhetoric and tweets, was clearly the MO of judges in search of an outcome they desired rather than the outcome the law unquestionably led to.

A victory not only for Trump, but for the Executive Branch and rational jurisprudence.

I'm sure the Ninth Circus got the message, eh, Finn?

NOT.

They never do, that's why 80% of their reviewed decisions end up getting reversed by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the (until now) majority of liberals on the SC.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A victory not only for Trump, but for the Executive Branch and rational jurisprudence.

I might have got it wrong - I didn't study US constitutional law and judicial legislation at university - but as far as I understood, parts of Trump's ban remain blocked, and there hadn't been a ruling on the overall constitutionality.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Everyone has their own motives and styles. I am always willing to take comfort where I can find it. I would like to know what's the big deal of that? In any event, yes it is better than Trump's original travel ban and the court put an additional cravat on it as well as well leaving in vetting process which would eventually allow them in. This way it left in the President's role of the executive branch but it curbed Trump's excesses. So all the protesting and the lower courts did some good.

I still think it is a totally unnecessary ban and will do little of its intended goal.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know