Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 918121 times)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #600 on: February 20, 2017, 01:53:08 pm »

Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.

So, who are the "alt-left press"? Is it limited to the media Trump singled out The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

Anybody else on the list? Let's take a look at the way media is rated (according to Pew)



So, anything left of say Yahoo News or the Wall Street Journal may fall into Trump sphere of #FAKE NEWS. Wow...ok, that leaves us with only Fox News, Drudge Report and the hodgepodge wing nut/crackpot alt-right.

Well, I do occasionally listen to Fox News (it's like a jolt of caffeine from an expresso) and read Breitbart. Don't know about The Blaze (I'll have to check it out) but I draw the line at Limbaugh and Hannity. Glenn Beck however can sometimes make sense without boiling the blood of liberals...

So, anybody let of the WSJ acceptable? Kinda limits your sources for news and information...hopefully ya don't get all your news from the Facebook friend echo chamber...

Seriously, the "alt-left press" is only alt-left when you compare it to the alt-right press. But Trump labels everybody left of Fox as #FAKE NEWS...that's gonna come back to bite him in the ass.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #601 on: February 20, 2017, 01:54:06 pm »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law

I am not sure the link supports your side of the argument. The clause means the president must take care to see the laws executed, and that is exactly what Trump was doing: executing the existing law.

If someone has a problem with the law itself, that is a different matter, and there are legal ways to change the law.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #602 on: February 20, 2017, 02:00:36 pm »

So...I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Don't take anything Trump says "literally"...

So, assuming we can agree on the definition of "literally" ...

She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.


Let me help you with that (bold). Grasping metaphors is a matter of intelligence. Taking things literally (i.e., failing to grasp the metaphor) is not.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #603 on: February 20, 2017, 03:09:01 pm »

I am not sure the link supports your side of the argument. The clause means the president must take care to see the laws executed, and that is exactly what Trump was doing: executing the existing law.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ensures that the United States does not adopt certain discriminatory immigration policies. The INA prohibits preference or discrimination on the basis of "a person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence".

So Trump's order was already in violation of that law. There were probably more elements that were unlawful, like unlawful detainment and like discrimination on the basis of religion, but I'd have to look up the exact wording. Not that it is necessary, because lawyers have unanimously already stated that several elements of the order were unconstitutional.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #604 on: February 20, 2017, 03:22:26 pm »

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ensures that the United States does not adopt certain discriminatory immigration policies. The INA prohibits preference or discrimination on the basis of "a person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence".

So Trump's order was already in violation of that law. There were probably more elements that were unlawful, like unlawful detainment and like discrimination on the basis of religion, but I'd have to look up the exact wording. Not that it is necessary, because lawyers have unanimously already stated that several elements of the order were unconstitutional.

Cheers,
Bart

I quoted a section of that law [Section 212(f)]... it IS a part of that law, and thus can not be in violation of itself. As for constitutionality, lower courts are not in position to determine that, only the Supreme Court, which is known to overturn lower courts numerous times.

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Trump II
« Reply #605 on: February 20, 2017, 03:23:49 pm »

Let's not get personal. Afterall, all Americans except the native Indians, Yupik, and Hawaiʻi Maoli, are basically immigrants.

Cheers,
Bart

Well, if we go back far enough, everyone is an immigrant.  Except perhaps for some people in Africa (or perhaps the middle east based on recent discoveries).  This idea of "who was there first" is a bit specious, I think.  If you want to talk about "who displaced whom" at a particular point in history, then that's perhaps a proper way to go about it.  But then you're really talking about the definition of "advancing" (or not) civilization.  And, since humans have been determined to be just another type of animal and nothing special except for being a tad more destructive, one might make a case that the western hemisphere's rightful "we were here first" goes to lots of "other" animal species and we should all leave so they can flourish without the destructive interference of homo sapiens on their turf.

We might all agree that going this far is unreasonable, but perhaps PITA might not think so. 

The point is, we all "choose" a starting point for our various foundations of thinking.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #606 on: February 20, 2017, 03:57:42 pm »

I quoted a section of that law [Section 212(f)]... it IS a part of that law, and thus can not be in violation of itself.

The EO obviously is, in particular for those with valid VISA, so who already have been vetted.

Quote
As for constitutionality, lower courts are not in position to determine that, only the Supreme Court, which is known to overturn lower courts numerous times.

Not overturned in this case ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #607 on: February 20, 2017, 04:03:51 pm »

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #608 on: February 20, 2017, 04:24:14 pm »

Yet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-plans-new-immigration-order-next-week-ends-legal-push-in-appeals-court-1487275058?mod=e2tw

The Justice Department told an appeals court Thursday that President Donald Trump would soon rescind and replace his controversial executive order on visas and refugees, adding that the court had no further reason to consider the current version.

So the current EO will never be overturned by the Supreme Court.

We'll have to see how the new version is worded.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #609 on: February 20, 2017, 04:27:09 pm »

... So the current EO will never be overturned by the Supreme Court...

Correct. Taking something all the way to the Supreme Court takes a lot of time. It is more efficient to draft a new one.

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #610 on: February 20, 2017, 04:32:22 pm »

Correct. Taking something all the way to the Supreme Court takes a lot of time. It is more efficient to draft a new one.
It's even more efficient to do it right the first time
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #611 on: February 20, 2017, 04:35:11 pm »

It's even more efficient to do it right the first time

Yes, of course, Mr. Perfect ;)

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Trump II
« Reply #612 on: February 20, 2017, 04:35:51 pm »

List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration:
Goldman Sachs appointees

Sorry, Republican battlers, you have been sold down the drain.

Would you prefer rust-belt workers or the rednecks appointed instead?

To be honest, basically my philosophy is, "If it doesn't work, find another solution that does work".

Appointing a four time bankrupt and four senior executives from a company that was at the centre of the GFC is a recipe for disaster.

I'm resolved to see the crazy thing that is US politics. But Republicans, out of all the brilliant minds in the Republican Party, why have you voted for this dysfunctional lot? You have just voted in the people you most hate.

Good luck,





Logged
Tom Brown

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #613 on: February 20, 2017, 04:37:51 pm »

I am not sure the link supports your side of the argument. The clause means the president must take care to see the laws executed, and that is exactly what Trump was doing: executing the existing law.

If someone has a problem with the law itself, that is a different matter, and there are legal ways to change the law.
Slobadan, the original order was very poorly drafted and that was the key issue.  I don't think anyone was arguing against what rights the President has.  I have some good friends who are top notch lawyers and they laughed out loud when they saw what was issued.  One of them recently retired as general counsel from a Fortune 500 company and he is now doing a lot of pro bono work back in DC.  He was disappointed that he didn't get a chance to file the first legal challenge.  The reason Trump is redrafting the original order is that they know it would not survive appeal to the Supreme Court and it's highly likely that the Supremes would not even accept it for hearing.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #614 on: February 20, 2017, 04:44:33 pm »

Grasping metaphors is a matter of intelligence.

Ah, so my inability to grasp and understand what Trump is saying is because I lack the intelligence to understand it...silly me. Here I was thinking that it was Trump Supporters who were "Ignorant & Dense.

5 Reasons Why Trump Supporters Aren’t ‘Frustrated Americans,’ They’re Just Ignorant & Dense

1. Nearly everything he says is a lie (to be factual, his rating was 69.6% not 100% lies)

2. He’s blatantly pushing bigotry and racism and they love him for it  (see « Reply #548 on: February 19, 2017, 04:17:15 PM » how his "Nationalism won over the hearts and minds)

3. They never question anything he says (regardless of how nonsensical or outrageous)

4. They actually believe he’s going to build a wall (and they believe it when he says Mexico will pay–we'll see huh?)

5. He blatantly treats his supporters like they’re ignorant and stupid (yeah, that's not me saying that, that's Trump, remember "I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and it would not cost me any votes")

But clearly since I'm not a Trump supporter, I lack the intelligence to grasp the nuances of what Trump is trying to communicate...my failure is that I'm taking the man at his words instead of grasping the metaphors.

Well, I've been righteously chastised and will serve my penance by obediently accepting my fate of being ruled by a malignant narcissist for the next four years because clearly I'm too f**king stooopid to realize that Trump is a wonderful man who only wants to Make America Great Again and help the little people for the first time in his miserable, money grubbing life.

My bad!

In point of fact, I grasp his metaphors just fine. I know dog whistles when I hear them...

Trump may be delivering the lines but it's the Stevie Twins (Bannon & Miller) who have their hands up his arse making his mouth move. After all, Trump is just a reality TV show host playing his role of a lifetime. I just wish the show would get cancelled so America and the rest of the world could get back to their lives!
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Trump II
« Reply #615 on: February 20, 2017, 04:45:32 pm »

List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration:
Goldman Sachs appointees

Sorry, Republican battlers, you have been sold down the drain.

To be honest, basically my philosophy is, "If it doesn't work, find another solution that does work".

Appointing a four time bankrupt and four senior executives from a company that was at the centre of the GFC is a recipe for disaster.

I'm resolved to see the crazy thing that is US politics. But Republicans, out of all the brilliant minds in the Republican Party, why have you voted for this dysfunctional lot? You have just voted in the people you most hate.

Good luck,

But wasn't that the point? The Republicans didn't win anything: they were hi-jacked by a movement. Or so I've seen it represented, but that might be post-truth news. I doubt it though, as few Republican politicians seemed to be enamoured of Mr T before he won. I guess they are just trying to make the best of it, as the UK Labour party is trying to do now, and for much the same reason: don't hang in there, and it may be all over for several decades at least.

Rob C



pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #616 on: February 20, 2017, 05:05:24 pm »

Yes, of course, Mr. Perfect ;)
Don't think it has anything to do with "perfect", just good enough would do but the order miserably failed that test.

It just makes good business sense to do it right from the start and I thought that Trump would have a chance because I assumed that is what he had, but unfortunately I think I got that wrong. I now hope that he will actually start governing when the first 100 days are over, the presidential campaign has take long enough and really doesn't need to be extended after the election is over. The time for campaigning is somewhere 2020, not now.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #617 on: February 20, 2017, 05:12:37 pm »

...5 Reasons Why...

All five flat out wrong.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #618 on: February 20, 2017, 05:23:00 pm »

All five flat out wrong.
proof of Confirmation Bias in action!!!
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #619 on: February 20, 2017, 05:24:47 pm »

...since the US refugee programme began in 1975, more than 3.2m refugees have entered the US and only three have carried out a deadly terrorist attack. Those three were Cubans who committed their crimes in the 1970s...

What are you talking about!? Just off the top of my head, the Boston bombers were refugees.

I am sure you'd continue to play the definition game: refugees, asylum-seekers, immigrants, etc. Deadly attack, terrorist attack, rape or common crime, etc. Same difference. How about those attacks that didn't turn up deadly, either because of their incompetence or because of our competence to stop them.

But the major danger is not in terrorist attacks, it is in the Islamization of the Western civilization. Europe is already lost, Trump is trying to save America.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 331   Go Up