192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:08 pm
@blatham,
Serious numerical error in my post

The mothers march took place not in 40+ cities but somewhere in the vicinity of 600 cities (Bloomberg)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:12 pm
Quote:
So for his first momentous decision as president that does not involve disrupting international travel, Donald Trump is providing a powerful validation to those who have argued he approaches politics and government as nothing more than a big reality-TV show.

According to CNN, Trump is bringing two finalists (Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman) for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court to Washington in advance of tonight’s live TV announcement of the president’s choice. It’s a move right out of The Apprentice.
NYMag

It's how Abe Lincoln and George Washington would have done it. Also, President Kim Kardashian.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:21 pm
It seems some Iranian suicide attack intended for U.S. ship hit a Saudi frigate instead, eh?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/31/exclusive-pentagon-believes-attack-on-saudi-frigate-meant-for-us-warship.html

old europe
 
  6  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:22 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Indeed Obama did something very similar in an order affecting some of the same countries and that action got nary a comment


Obama signed legislation passed by Congress, introduced by a Republican legislator, attached as a rider to an omnibus spending bill. Very different from bypassing Congress - never mind a Congress with a Republican majority in both chambers - and issuing an Executive Order.

It also didn't block travel or immigration by either citizens or residents of the listed countries, and it didn't bar entry to the United States to anyone traveling from those areas. It simply changed the process for anyone travelling from those countries from being able to just board a flight and travel to the U.S. through the Visa Waiver Program to having to obtain a visa for travelling.

That the difference between that and detaining people at the airport, leaving legal residents or visa holders stuck abroad, or applying a blanket travel ban for entire nations is not obvious to you seems pretty telling.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:24 pm
@layman,
Looks like Trump aint gunna get the chance to upgrade our nukes before he has to launch some.

Pity, that, but it's still cool. Them old-ass nukes still pack plenty of punch.

Soon some Iranian will be telling a tourist: "That's where Tehran used to be."
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:29 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
any new idea about the nature of God or any new idea about recommended social behavior/religious behavior and morality will inevitably separate people.

And that's all I was really say'n. I'm kind of like meh.. about the politics
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:30 pm
Ed Kilgore makes a very good point I hadn't thought of (and one I've not seen others make, though I might have missed instances of it) - why didn't Trump and team just hold up on the immigration bill for a week or two when all his principle people (like Sessions and Homeland Security chair) would be in place, thus lessening confusion and discord? We know there was no imminent threat (being asked, Spicer had nothing to provide).

Quote:
It’s all so familiar that Trump’s critics should resist the temptation to underestimate these people yet again. They do not give a damn about respectable opinion; they live to defy it. They will not be shaken by judicial thunder; they view judges as pawns in larger battles involving more powerful political and economic forces. They don’t fear GOP elected officials; they’ve watched Republicans turn tail, roll over, and beg for tax-cut treats and other policy concessions; just the day before Trump started this latest conflagration the entire congressional party assembled in Philadelphia to beg its new master for direction.

...The “Muslim ban” is just one of many signs that the new administration is courting confrontation and encouraging fear and anger among its enemies.
NY Mag

Kilgore isn't arguing that startling incompetence is not a feature here, just that there is another important aspect to what's going on that matches particular goals of this group. If we miss this, I think we make a big error.
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:32 pm
@Leadfoot,
Then we are as one. Though not in that biblical cleaving, beast with two backs meaning.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:33 pm
@farmerman,
Is that the Catahoula? Go get 'm, doggie.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:34 pm
Anyone calling it a "Muslim Ban" has already lost all credibility and deserves to be either mocked or ignored for being a fool.
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:36 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
The “Muslim ban” is just one of many signs that the new administration is courting confrontation and encouraging fear and anger among its enemies.


That's right!

It's kinda like Ali when he would put his arms at his side and stick his chin way out, taunting his opponent to try and hit him.

Of course they had to try.

Then he would easily duck their punch and catch them hard with a swift right uppercut.

I pity the fools.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:37 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Anyone calling it a "Muslim Ban" has already lost all credibility and deserves to be either mocked or ignored for being a fool.


True that, Gent.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:42 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
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.
Not a promising first graph. Your implication here is that prior criticisms of Trump were driven only by obsessive hatred or unhinged paranoia (actually this one too but some PR cover is provided by unique circumstance of it). That may be emotionally or rhetorically agreeable for you but it an entirely irrational framing.
- the majority of citizens did not want Trump in the WH
- the concerted efforts from Republicans/conservatives to keep him out of the WH has no historical precedent
- Trump's approval/disapproval ratings in taking office are without precedent
- the protests against Trump that followed the day after his inauguration in 40 or more cities across the US comprised what is apparently the largest protest in American history.

If you rewrite that graph rationally, I'll take up the remainder of your argument.

Finn was a good deal more rational in making his argument than were you in claiming to refute it: he deserved a better response than the one you gave him. The items you cited are merely some of the facts behind and attendant to the widespread outrage of his many opponents over Trump's generally unexpected election victoty. That outrage is very clearly a central factor behind the grossly inaccurate reporting behind the recent immigration executive order and as well the quite irrational judgment of the now former Acting AG that the Executive order was somehow "illegal'. I haven't yet seen any WP reference to Obama's very simillar Executiive Order creating a similar temporary restriction on travel and immigration to several of the same countries, or to the Fact that the Acting AG is a member of the Executive Brance and duty bound to represent it on an issue before it from the Judicial branch - this stuff is all quite ordinary.

Finn's earlier conclusion was also entirely correct. Your actions on this thread have exclusively been to further whatever inflammatory materiaal you can find on a political figure in a neighboring country, whom for your own reasons, fair or foul, you find to be authoritarian, ego-driven and worse.. There is not even the pretense of objectivity or any ( save one) detectable effort to acknowledge error in the endless screeds you paste here. Your object is not dialogue or better understanding: it is merely propaganda
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:45 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Your object is not dialogue or better understanding: it is merely propaganda.


Bingo.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:46 pm
@georgeob1,
Trump has a history of bigotry; enough to disqualify him as president of this country.
Ban all Muslims? Build a wall? Come on, George, you should know better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-a-bigot-and-a-racist/2015/12/01/a2a47b96-9872-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?utm_term=.52a6c7c1ad54
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
More opinion as fact? Are you going to actually post something that isn't an opinion piece? Izzy likes to bring up original thought and the lack of it on a2k, I guess he missed all of your posts...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 02:53 pm
@Baldimo,
It's a factual opinion piece. Refute it if you can; you can't.
The NYT isn't going to publish an opinion piece that is false, because everybody knows Trump loves to sue. He can't.

Trump is going to take credit for the reduced subscriptions to the NYT, but all print media has been dropping because of the internet. It's not only New York.

Statistics and fact about print media in the US.
https://www.statista.com/topics/1052/print-media/

Also, Trump lies 76% of the time. That you wish to believe this liar is your problem.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/fact-checking-website-donald-trump-lies-76-percent-of-the-time
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 03:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's a factual opinion piece. Refute it if you can; you can't.
The NYT isn't going to publish an opinion piece that is false, because everybody knows Trump loves to sue. He can't. [/quot] You're ill informed. As a Public political Trump can't sue for libel.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Trump is going to take credit for the reduced subscriptions to the NYT, but all print media has been dropping because of the internet. It's not only New York.


I don't recall Trump as claiming any credit for that. He has however several time stated that the decline in NYT circulation is a result of their own incompetence in objective reporting.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 03:05 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
He has however several time stated that the decline in NYT circulation is a result of their own incompetence in objective reporting.


You don't get it, George. All city newspapers circulation are dropping.

Quote:
U.S. Business News
Newspaper-Circulation Drop Sharpens
By Andrew LaVallee
Updated April 29, 2008 12:01 a.m. ET
Most of the nation's biggest newspapers saw circulation tumble at an increased rate, a sign that the migration of readers online may be picking up speed.
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Tue 31 Jan, 2017 03:10 pm
Meantime, music to my reading eyes -

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-francisco-trump-20170131-story.html

San Francisco sues Trump over executive order targeting 'sanctuary cities'
by Shelby Grad

San Francisco on Tuesday sued President Trump, contending that an executive order aimed at cracking down on so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional.

The filing in federal court comes less than a week after Trump issued orders putting cities and counties on notice that they would lose federal funding if they didn’t start cooperating with immigration agents. The move has broad implications for California, a state that aggressively protects its undocumented population from deportation.

At a news conference Tuesday live-streamed by the city, San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said Trump’s order was unconstitutional and “un-American.”

"Strong cities like San Francisco must continue to push the nation forward and remind America that we are a city that fights for what is right," Mayor Ed Lee said.

The cities Trump is targeting have many tools to strike back. Among the most potent are high court decisions that have interpreted financial threats like the one Trump is now making as an unlawful intrusion on states’ rights.

Elected officials in California are skeptical about how aggressively Trump’s vague executive order can be enforced.

Trump left unclear what funding is at stake and which cities and counties are threatened. The administration would be on shaky legal ground going after money allocated for anything other than law enforcement, and taking funds away from police is a risky proposition for a new president promising to restore order in the streets. And even that, attorneys for the Legislature assert, takes an act of Congress.

More than 400 jurisdictions across the country have some sort of policy regarding how they deal with people in the country illegally, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and about 40 others in California.

There is no neat definition of “sanctuary city,” but in general, cities that adopt the designation seek to offer political support or practical protections to people who are in the country illegally.

For some cities, the sanctuary movement consists simply of encouraging people without legal status to get more involved in government. For instance, Huntington Park has never declared itself a sanctuary city but appointed two people without legal status to a city commission, a move that generated national attention.

Other places, such as San Francisco, adopt far-reaching policies, such as taking steps to cut ties with federal immigration officials and refusing to fully cooperate with them. San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, and city officials strengthened the stance in 2013 with its “Due Process for All” ordinance. The law declared that local authorities could not keep immigrants in custody to be handed over to federal immigration officials if they had no violent felonies on their records and did not face charges.

San Francisco entered the national debate over immigration this summer, when Kathryn Steinle was fatally shot by Mexican national Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez in the Embarcadero neighborhood.

Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times before he shot Steinle. Trump described the murder as "a senseless and totally preventable violent act committed by an illegal immigrant."

San Francisco’s lawsuit comes amid growing rancor over Trump’s orders, which include restrictions on travel from some Muslim countries and plans to build a border wall.


UPDATES:
12:05 p.m.: This post was updated with more details about San Francisco’s sanctuary city history and a quote from the mayor.

10:50 a.m.: This post was updated with new information about the lawsuit, comment from San Francisco's city attorney and larger context about sanctuary cities.

This post was originally published at 10:44 a.m.

Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times



 

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 07/12/2025 at 03:28:07