Author Topic: The Trump Presidency (Read 1049704 times)

Quote from: Spracne on January 31, 2017, 07:25:24 PM
I don't think the dems do that. Playing with fire.

as ye sow, ye shall reap, spracne. honor demands it.

They'll blow some smoke but ultimately confirm him says this casual observer.

The Big Train · « **Reply #1585 on:** January 31, 2017, 08:34:45 PM »

What do you even look for in a Supreme Court appointee?

sys · « **Reply #1586 on:** January 31, 2017, 08:43:05 PM »

Quote from: Spracne on January 31, 2017, 08:32:04 PM

They'll blow some smoke but ultimately confirm him.

they wouldn't dare. a party that won't defend their nominees is no party. they must avenge garland or they will be primaried into the dirt.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1587 on:** January 31, 2017, 08:56:13 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2017, 04:58:31 PM

This is as good a place as any.

A paradox, a quandary, irony?

Should we be congratulating Apple for sitting on a $264 billion dollar mound of cash (most of it kept outside the United States)? Is this a #MAGA moment? I think we can all agree that Apple at their core (rim shot) is left leaning politically (hundreds of thousands to Hillary and Bernie and the DNC).

It would seem logical that ProgLib Nation would be imploring Apple to bring that money back home, right? It would seem logical that ProgLib Nation would applaud a move by the Trump Administration to lower ridiculous corporate tax rates, so that money could be brought home and invested in the United States. It would seem logical that a left leaning company would, as they say, want to do the "right" thing and put that massive largess to work. Or does the left just bow their head to good old fashioned capitalism when a left oriented company sits on billions of dollars off shore?

A pickle. Welp, hopefully those Apple employees spend those bonuses well as they walk among the homeless and the poor drinking their 'bucks and riding their special buses (hopefully powered by "green" fuels) over to Cupertino and soon the new "Mothership".

Well, I'm right-leaning and don't really have a problem with US companies moving jobs offshore.

sys · « **Reply #1588 on:** January 31, 2017, 08:57:14 PM »

it's basic economics that it's a net benefit to both countries.

bucket · « **Reply #1589 on:** January 31, 2017, 09:12:03 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2017, 04:58:31 PM

This is as good a place as any.

A paradox, a quandary, irony?

Should we be congratulating Apple for sitting on a $264 billion dollar mound of cash (most of it kept outside the United States)? Is this a #MAGA moment? I think we can all agree that Apple at their core (rim shot) is left leaning politically (hundreds of thousands to Hillary and Bernie and the DNC).

It would seem logical that ProgLib Nation would be imploring Apple to bring that money back home, right? It would seem logical that ProgLib Nation would applaud a move by the Trump Administration to lower ridiculous corporate tax rates, so that money could be brought home and invested in the United States. It would seem logical that a left leaning company would, as they say, want to do the "right" thing and put that massive largess to work. Or does the left just bow their head to good old fashioned capitalism when a left oriented company sits on billions of dollars off shore?

A pickle. Welp, hopefully those Apple employees spend those bonuses well as they walk among the homeless and the poor drinking their 'bucks and riding their special buses (hopefully powered by "green" fuels) over to Cupertino and soon the new "Mothership".

Untaxed? No.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #1590 on:** January 31, 2017, 11:27:57 PM »

Quote from: ednksu on January 31, 2017, 04:09:01 AM

Quote from: MakeItRain on January 30, 2017, 10:34:35 PM
Quote from: chum1 on January 30, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
They already instructed DHS to ignore federal judges, too.

https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/826272670618640384

This doesn't work for me. It's the same stupid crap republicans did to delegitimize the ACA. There is nothing in the constitution that the ACA violated. There's nothing in the constitution expressly prohibiting that president to allow people from Africa as the middle east into the country. Nor does the constitution state you are entitled to disagree with your boss without consequence.

He's just a shitty human doing shitty human things. All people of faith should be leaning on their teachings here, but this isn't a constitutional battle.
You are in error about the laws and how they apply. There is a reason why the stay was granted. Further the bigger crisis is that after a legal, unchallenged stay was granted CBP continued to unconstitutionally prohibit the right to counsel and due process.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html?client=ms-android-sprint-us

In the past I would have went in on you for talking to me like I'm stupid, I'm going to let that ride.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #1591 on:** January 31, 2017, 11:32:25 PM »

Quote from: chum1 on January 31, 2017, 06:47:02 AM

Quote from: MakeItRain on January 31, 2017, 02:29:49 AM
Quote from: chum1 on January 30, 2017, 11:00:24 PM
Quote from: MakeItRain on January 30, 2017, 10:34:35 PM
Quote from: chum1 on January 30, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
They already instructed DHS to ignore federal judges, too.

https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/826272670618640384

This doesn't work for me. It's the same stupid crap republicans did to delegitimize the ACA. There is nothing in the constitution that the ACA violated. There's nothing in the constitution expressly prohibiting that president to allow people from Africa as the middle east into the country. Nor does the constitution state you are entitled to disagree with your boss without consequence.

He's just a shitty human doing shitty human things. All people of faith should be leaning on their teachings here, but this isn't a constitutional battle.

Yates said she wasn't sure the order was legal. Whether or not she meant Constitutional, the takeaway is still the same. It's absolutely not her job to do whatever the President says.

I have zero issues with what she did or her rationale, my issue is with the Ellison tweet.

My issue is with what Trump did. I'm not at all surprised by it. And maybe there would have been zero transition and she would have been out the second Trump's guy was approved, anyway. But the general principle acted on here, and the message that was sent, is that Trump will fire anyone he can who doesn't do whatever he wants regardless. That's very bad.

Yeah man, I know that, I said something very similar to it just a few posts before it. Trump didn't ask her to violate the constitution though, he asked her to verbally support him, Ellison could have made his point without the stupid hyperbole that has paralyzed our government.

puniraptor · « **Reply #1592 on:** February 01, 2017, 08:08:47 AM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2017, 12:56:51 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 30, 2017, 11:37:54 AM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2017, 11:27:52 AM
And again, the children of muslim immigrants appear to pose an even more significant problem..

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff?

http://www.businessinsider.com/minneapolis-isis-problem-2015-9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen

K-S-U-wilds-cat-s, can you address the allegations that immigrants from Saudi Arabia are not banned and, if true, explain?

Yard Dog · « **Reply #1593 on:** February 01, 2017, 08:54:37 AM »

Quote from: The Big Train on January 31, 2017, 08:34:45 PM

What do you even look for in a Supreme Court appointee?

Sounds like years of experience and education. Gorsuch has two law degrees and went to Columbia University, University of Oxford, and Harvard University. He spent like 10 years on a big court in Colorado.

The big thing that people are loving about Gorsuch is his focus on the constitution. He said in his speech that if you are a good judge than you have made many rulings you didn't personally like. This is because he will put the constitution before his personal beliefs, which is what most people want from their supreme court justices.

Yard Dog · « **Reply #1594 on:** February 01, 2017, 08:56:26 AM »

Quote from: puniraptor on February 01, 2017, 08:08:47 AM

K-S-U-wilds-cat-s, can you address the allegations that immigrants from Saudi Arabia are not banned and, if true, explain?

1) They weren't on the list prepared by Obama's administration. It is my understanding that the countries on the list were compiled before Trump took office.

2) Saudi Arabia is an American ally

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #1595 on:** February 01, 2017, 08:58:14 AM »

Quote from: puniraptor on February 01, 2017, 08:08:47 AM

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2017, 12:56:51 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 30, 2017, 11:37:54 AM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2017, 11:27:52 AM
And again, the children of muslim immigrants appear to pose an even more significant problem..

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff?

http://www.businessinsider.com/minneapolis-isis-problem-2015-9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen
K-S-U-wilds-cat-s, can you address the allegations that immigrants from Saudi Arabia are not banned and, if true, explain?

I don't think immigrants from SA are subject to the executive order. The executive order actually doesn't reference any countries by name except for Syria. Instead, it points to a 2015 law, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), which refers to certain "countries or areas of concern" as defined by the State Department. So if you want to know why those particular seven countries are "on the list" and SA is not, I'd suggest asking these guys (between golfing and wind surfing sessions).

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1596 on:** February 01, 2017, 09:04:40 AM »

As the days go by we (re) learn how willingly complicit many Dems still in office were in laying the groundwork for the ability of the president to temporarily suspend immigration from specific countries.

For example just over a year ago Chuck "crocodile tears" Schumer had grave concerns about Syrian refugees.

Going back to 2002 we (re) learn that for example Diane Feinstein was co sponsor of a bill that gave the president additional security powers relevant to immigration.

The fact that so many Dems and so many in the media are trying to go back and retroactively nuance their way out of their willingness to sign off on legislation and policy which both gave the power and/or mirrored the current policies is truly sad and pathetic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1597 on:** February 01, 2017, 09:05:22 AM »

As the days go by we (re) learn how willingly complicit many Dems still in office were in laying the groundwork for the ability of the president to temporarily suspend immigration from specific countries.

For example just over a year ago Chuck "crocodile tears" Schumer had grave concerns about Syrian refugees.

Going back to 2002 we (re) learn that for example Diane Feinstein was co sponsor of a bill that gave the president additional security powers relevant to immigration.

The fact that so many Dems and so many in the media are trying to go back and retroactively nuance their way out of their willingness to sign off on legislation and policy which both gave the power and/or mirrored the current policies is truly sad and pathetic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chum1 · « **Reply #1598 on:** February 01, 2017, 09:21:23 AM »

Given how much Trump lies to make himself look good, I hope that everyone lies as much as possible in order to make him look bad. It's only fair.

420seriouscat69 · « **Reply #1599 on:** February 01, 2017, 09:23:19 AM »

THIS IS GREAT!!!

s