192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 08:51 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Normally, if a Justice official disagrees on the legality of an administration order (or a congressional act) the response will be, "We disagree with the legal finding and will prepare a legal challenge"

With Trump, it's BETRAYAL.

It is an authoritarian response. Administrative and judicial are separate branches by design. Justice is not the servant of the the administration.


In keeping with the left proclivity for fake news I give you blathers is blatant lie.

She wasn't opposing the president with a illegal challenge it was a political challenge. And based on that, if she had such a problem she should have offered her resignation. What she did instead was blatant insubordination. And that's why she was fired.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 08:55 am
@Frugal1,
Frugal1 wrote:
The guest at the bar is really ignorant... are you equally ignorant?
Even if you don't believe it: my name is neither Christopher Bucktin (the author of that article) nor am I in any other way related to any journalist, editor, or owner of the Daily Mirror.

In terms of ignorance: they say ignorance is bliss but I find yours not only rather disturbing but dangerous.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 08:59 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I know, right? Foxconn is actually in talks with a local place to make monitors here. We had a great nano sight built for a Euro chip manufacturer but they backed out after a bit of a scandal. Foxconn would be huge for this area.
Are you referring here to Foxconn, otherwise known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., from Taipeh, Republik China?
Olivier5
 
  5  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler to Frug wrote:
I find your [ignorance] not only rather disturbing but dangerous.


Frug must be a fake rightist paid for by George Soros to tarnish Trump's image online. No real human being could possibly be so dense.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:07 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes, they are looking at setting up a plant in the US to make monitors.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:23 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Response moderated under rule 7, which covers hate speech, slurs and epithets, etc. See more info.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:26 am
@blatham,
Quote:
With Trump, it's BETRAYAL.


The rotten bitch didn't betray Donald Trump; she tried to betray the American people, who DT was trying to protect.
farmerman
 
  8  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:31 am
@gungasnake,
So she betrayed the US by reminding our ADD president that PERHAPS, these points wont pass Constitutional muster because
1They may have been improperly conveyed

2They may be counter to the rules of law

If the president is so fuckin lazy as to default to his puppetmasters, we have a condition even more frightening than the GW Bush regime.
I wish my dog would obey as well as you clowns
farmerman
 
  4  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:35 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
who DT was trying to protect
youre deranged. What if Iran CANCELS its order for all those Boeing planes because Iran is on the "hit" list.
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:36 am
@farmerman,
She was insubordinate.
farmerman
 
  6  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:56 am
@Frugal1,
when Hitler's henchmen were tried at Nuremberg, they werent insubordinate to der Fuhrer but hung anyway.
So, is obeying the boss more importantthan doing whats right??
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:59 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:59 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

when Hitler's henchmen were tried at Nuremberg, they weren't insubordinate to der Fuhrer but hung anyway.
So, is obeying the boss more important than doing whats right??


Killing a couple million humans is different than not enforcing a law on immigration. I find it comical that you feel the need to bring up the Holocaust because some bureaucrat decided she needed to make a name for herself.

Her opinion on "what's right" is immaterial to her job.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:02 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

when Hitler's henchmen were tried at Nuremberg, they werent insubordinate to der Fuhrer but hung anyway.
So, is obeying the boss more importantthan doing whats right??

Apples and oranges and you are too disingenuous to admit it. She works for the president she was insubordinate and disobeyed and she was fired. End of story.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It's been brilliant watching people I know in real life getting out and marching, making phone calls, protesting, protecting their country and beliefs. If nothing else, Mr. Trump's actions are causing his opponents to really step out and up.

It kind of feels like the old days to me - getting out and protesting, making things happen, instead of just sitting back. Hopefully one of the young leaders from the activist world will want to take on politics.

The downside is the split in America also becomes clearer. I've said for years that I didn't see how it could work as a country when it was so divided. Are the historians right when they suggest America was a failed experiment?
farmerman
 
  6  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:09 am
@giujohn,
It started with many well meaning but politically naive people of Germany supporting what appeared to be reasonable orders .
its not apples and oranges. Its apples and Quinces

Hitler didnt become a ruthless dictator overnight. He first got a vocal support base
(CHECK)

He hired sycophants(CHECK) (maybe MAd Dog wont be around too long cause he doesnt appear to fit the Dumpster's mold completely)

Then, he developed a number of policies that were politically assertive qnd he identified a clear ENEMY (CHECK)

Then he consolidated his power and limited power of his detractors(STILL WORKING ON THAT ONE)

Then he BANNED certain activities by those NOT ARYAN (WORKING ON THAT ONE)

Then he went for Leebensraum and "Arbeit mach Frei"
(STILL IN THE PIPELINE)
farmerman
 
  5  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:11 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
historians right when they suggest America was a failed experiment?
when we exchange freedom for order we get neither
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:23 am
@blatham,
Nonsense

The Yates dismissal provides Trump opponents with a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that they are motivated in their criticism by something other than obsessive hatred or unhinged paranoia.

Ms Yates was placeholder necessitated by the foot dragging of the Democrats. She was allowed to remain in place by the Trump Admin as a temporary caretaker. If she had been summarily dismissed from the outset, as would have been Trump's right, you would almost assuredly have had something negative to say about it. Instead she was permitted to remain in place as Acting DOJ - no small thing - with the tacit understanding that her role was to keep the wheels of the DOJ turning and certainly not to involve herself in political controversies. Most of the Obama Admin holdovers in Fed agencies sought to be retained and were quite pleased when their requests were granted. Every single one of them could have resigned before or after Trump was sworn in and a few people of actual principle did just that.

As you are so fond of telling us what is very important to note, the following, in relation to this matter, are certainly so:

There has been a legal opinion from the DOJ relative to the EO, The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel reviewed it after it was drafted and signed off on its legality. . Apparently Yates was unaware of this fact before she climbed onto the grandstand (Which is stunning, but typical) or she ignored it (Which is stunning, but also typical)

Neither Yates nor any DOJ attorney developed an additional, alternative legal opinion prior to her launching her political move, nor did she ever cite any specific legal grounds for her discomfort with the EO, instead placing the emphasis for her decision on the fact that she was concerned about its rightness. She didn't like or agree with the thing.

While Yates and everyone else has a perfect right to question Trump's motivation for the EO and to note that it was the end product of a Trump initiated discussion about banning all Muslims from entering the country, neither have anything at all to do with what the EO actually says and whether it is legal or, for that matter, moral.

It is irrefutable that the EO is not a Muslim ban. It doesn't matter one whit in terms its propriety and application that it has its origins with the stream of conscious rhetoric of the new president, or anything Rudy Giuliani may say have said about it on news show. The argument made by Yates that either, and particularly the latter, were important elements of her analysis of the order is laughable. The EO is not an obtuse, vaguely worded document that demands a careful consideration of the intent that formed it.

As for the intent, from a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter that Trump may have seriously wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country, because even after applying the broadest most partisan fueled interpretation of what it actually says, only someone with a staggering degree of intellectual dishonesty or utter stupidity, can continue to claim it is a Muslim Ban.

From a political standpoint, obviously people can twist the EO any which way they want to serve their purpose of furthering their claim that Trump is an unhinged dictator in the making. They can, and to their shame they have.

An alternative analysis that is far more credible and should assuage people's fears, not inflame them is that while Trump may have wanted to ban all Muslims on the basis of their religion, after consideration of the political implications and its legality what he has come up with is not at all a blanket ban but a carefully crafted, and prudently limited solution to the perceived problem.

You can argue whether or not the problem was real or as significant as he imagines and you can argue whether or not the EO will effectively address that problem but it should reassure you that even if the initial idea was improperly discriminatory, the system and his own acceptance of limitations produced something much different from the original concept.

Of course this analysis of the situation doesn't support the narrative of a fascist dictator running amok and trampling on rights so will be dismissed out of hand.

Yates, in questioning the legality and morality of the EO viewed the entire matter through a partisan political prism, and rather than consulting the Administration with her supposedly legitimate concerns she chose to address them in a way that guaranteed media attention and forced Trump to take additional action that could be used in the left's political war against him. It wasn't a particularly clever political ploy but it served his purpose. I suspect the timing of Yates' memo to the DOJ staff was intended to drag the matter out further and give her political allies more time to use it in the press and allow them to better set the stage for the inevitable firing to be compared to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. I can imagine the columns of Dana Milbank or EJ Dionne recounting Nixon's firing of Cox and warning us that if Trump fires Yates it will be tantamount to an admission that she is correct. Rubbish of course, but that's the stock in trade of progressive pundits these days.

As it turned out, Trump's political advisers are either getting their sea legs or voices previously unheard are now being heard, because the response to Yate's opening gambit was almost immediate and unambiguous and with time to get their people out to cable news shows when Americans might still be watching. It wasn't genius and it didn't extinguish all controversy, but it was smart and further skill will be needed as the left attempts to blow yet another incident entirely out of proportion.

As previously noted, the only legal opinion the Acting Attorney General had to inform her decision was one that certified its legality and so the only basis on which she could honestly base her objection was her personal sense that the order was not right. Since her intentions were purely political, it's not at all surprising that she didn't followed a course that would have allowed her to act on her misgivings and maintain her integrity: Advise her boss of her concerns and if unable to persuade him to her way of thinking, resign. This approach would still have scored political points because the MSM would still have used it as a political club, but clearly, Yates had no concern for her personal integrity and either saw or was convinced of an alternative approach that would inflict maximum political damage and provide her with considerable advantage by setting her up as the new Wendy Davis, hero of the Left future candidate for a seat in the House, or if she is absurdly ambitious as Davis, the Governor's Mansion of her home State.

So, putting aside for now the clear truth that the EO is not a ban on Muslims nor an effort rid our country or the opening gambit in Trump design on a dictatorship, any reasonable and honest assessment of the Yate affair should be that this was a politically motivated stunt and that Trump's firing of her was entirely legitimate and in no way and admission that that Yates is correct and/or the EO is not proper.

Of course this doesn't mean that Trump is not a dangerous amateur with autocratic inclinations, blundering about on the world stage. I of course don't agree with such an analysis although I do have my concerns about his presidency. It's possible that you can be wrong about Yates but not about everything else. Highly unlikely but possible. However by turning every Trump related incident into evidence of his evil and/or incompetence you have revealed, what many of us knew from the start, that this thread has nothing to do with monitoring Trump and offering intelligent and even moderately biased commentary, it is your A2K platform for disseminating anti-Trump propaganda.
old europe
 
  4  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:30 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
He wondered if the judge, because of his Mexican heritage, was mad at him because if his (Trump's) position on illegal immigration from Mexico.


So the assumption is that you can draw a conclusion from the judge's ethnicity to what opinions he might hold?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:50 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
He wondered if the judge, because of his Mexican heritage, was mad at him because if his (Trump's) position on illegal immigration from Mexico.


So the assumption is that you can draw a conclusion from the judge's ethnicity to what opinions he might hold?


Did you even read his post? Here, try again.

Quote:
It's mystifying that I have to explain this step by step, but okay. Trump has a policy regarding illegal immigration from Mexico, including illegal immigrants already in America. He felt that the judge had made a series of odd rulings against him. He wondered if the judge, because of his Mexican heritage, was mad at him because if his (Trump's) position on illegal immigration from Mexico. Now, how long will you make me clarify the obvious?


Which parts of that didn't you get to lead you to asking the question you did?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 11:48:18