President Trump-continued again
iRun 
skippy 
Me. Tone "Which would be their *choice* to buy. Nobody has to purchase a Dodge." Sounds simple enough.
Until you add in, Nobody has to purchase....
"The Cadillac Escalade EXT and SRX, Chevrolet Avalanche, Chevrolet Aveo, Chevrolet HHR, Chevrolet Silverado and Silverado Hybrid, Dodge Journey, Dodge Ram 2500, Dodge Ram 3500, Dodge Ram 4500, Dodge Ram 5500, Ford Fiesta, Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid, GMC Sierra and Sierra Hybrid, GMC Sierra Crew Cab, Honda CR-V, Lincoln MKZ and MKZ Hybrid, Nissan Sentra, Nissan Versa, Volkswagen Jetta and Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen are all assembled in Mexico. Toyota Tacomas are assembled in both Mexico and the United States. Engines made in Mexico include those used in the Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Ram 1500, Ford Escape and Escape Hybrid, GM Buick Lucerne and Cadillac CTS line, Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, Chevrolet Cruze and Malibu, Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, GMC Yukon Hybrid and Mazda Tribute Hybrid. Transmissions made in Mexico include those used in the Dodge Calibur, Chrysler Jeep Compass and Patriot, Ford Shelby GT500, Nissan Altima and Maxima, and a wide range of GM vehicles.
Of course this is an ever changing list about to get much, much smaller. But as Mark Mc says, nobody got to purchase Mexican if you want to avoid th 20% tariff. That right kids, you can buy cars made in America for the same price.....
Actually you won't need to worry about it at all. Who's got the money to buy a new car anyway.
I feel great again.
strangerdanger So if we're cool building a wall between us and Mexico, why not another one between us and Canada? Oh, that's white.
Sycamore
Mark Mc. You're right SD. Nobody *has* to buy any of those models. If you *want* to, just evaluate the cost with tariffs to see if it's worth the price.
Clinton received 800,000 votes from non-citizens....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
JeffersonRepub 
MB 1/10th sounds significant enough to build another wall. Plus once all the land access is barricaded, they're just going to hop on boats. I think we need walls along every inch of coast line as well. That will serve a secondary benefit of keeping out the rising sea levels, just in case global warming isn't a Chinese hoax after all....
ianimal 
kb2755 "1/10th sounds significant enough to build another wall."
Priorities...
"That will serve a secondary benefit of keeping out the rising sea levels"
No, please.... LET the sea levels rise. The US political atmosphere would be so much better without NYC, LA, etc.
While we're at it, ianimal, might as well. Clearly we don't need the rest of the world any more. We have Trump!
"No, please.... LET the sea levels rise. The US political atmosphere would be so much better without NYC, LA, etc."
What happened to CalBrexit? I wish they'd get on with it....
So, let me get this straight... Trump is going to "make Mexico pay for the wall" by instituting a 20% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. So, if I'm now paying $1.20 for an avocado instead of $1.00, how is that "Mexico" paying for the wall? It sounds more like "I" am paying for the wall.
The US political atmosphere would be so much better without snide and sophomoric comments emanating from a South Carolina gun lover who evidently has made so few friends he has to maintain a semblance of a social life on HL.
Yankeefan Ian,
I'm with you on that one... I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation either. HOWEVER- if WE had to pay for Obamacare, and WE have to pay for wars, then WE have to pay for the wall. Tit for tat. You may not like it, (the figurative "you"), but "you" aren't in power... just like "we" (the figurative "we") didn't like it when we weren't in power.
The important thing to the Trump supporters is that the wall be built, and immigration be FINALLY controlled. Who's paying for it is secondary.
RAS If you're not retired yet - look out: ......The first step in the process was put into action on Dec. 8, 2016 when Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, introduced a bill under the guise of “reform.” In actuality, Johnson’s plan will raise the retirement age and cut benefits to millions of a Americans who desperately need those benefits to survive.
Innocuously titled “The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 (H.R. 6489)“, Johnson’s plan is a disaster for working Americans who have dutifully paid into the program their entire lives based on the promise of receiving benefits in their golden years. Johnson wants to raise the retirement age to 69-years-old, because in the new America promised under President Trump the Republican party wishes for citizens pushing 70 years of age to continue hammering nails and waiting tables.
Further, the plan also calls to reduce overall benefits to recipients, and to reduce the amount of money brought into the system by giving large tax breaks to wealthy individuals. The fun does not stop there, as Johnson is also seeking to cut the benefits of family members of individuals who receive benefits by changing the law from benefits being based on the wages earned by individual over their lifetime to what has been colorfully described as “average wages.”
4catmom I know you think you're hilarious, KB, but we get a LOT of produce from Mexico - not just avocados.
My family eats a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables and groceries are already very expensive. My grocery bill going up even more for this BS is not something I'm OK with.
Sorry MB, just trying to add some humor in here as things are really heated. That being said, Ianimal is right, all of us who buy products with the 20% tariff will be paying for the wall, not Mexico. A stupid idea if I ever heard one.
Remember Mexico will not pay for the wall short of War and or major price increases of everything they export to the US. American grocery bills and not just manufactured goods will go sky high. US consumers and tax payers will get screwed having their taxes go up paying for whatever "wall" he builds. This will set back any positive relations with Mexico.
Mexico given the Trump threats will trade with and expand their diplomatic relations elsewhere perhaps with China. A very possible unforeseen consequence of Trump's core ignorance and stupidity regarding foreign affairs. But what do you expect from someone who admires Putin and the other henchmen who rule Russia.
It is very scary when you realize our government today is in the hands of people who are very similar in their background, beliefs, statements and actions to Hitler and the thugs who took over Germany and started WWII.
Jono US estimated cost for illegals for the year 2010 was over $100B.7 years later, the number has to be much more.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illeg...ry?id=10699317
Wall
$15B-$20B and Mexico one way or another will pay at least part of the cost..
Let the drug cartels that run the corrupt Gov chip in.
Joe MB, Mexico exports far more than produce. Cars, Appliances, Electronics...
Domestic produce pricing will also rise as farm labor disappears.
You guys act like this would be the first/only tariff imposed on goods coming into the USA. There are *thousands* of tariffs on almost everything crossing into our borders.
Here's all 99 chapters of the tariff schedule:
https://hts.usitc.gov/current
Are you guys opposed to all of these too, or just the ones which don't agree with your political leanings?
Sure, let's get rid of them... I could save a few bucks on guns and ammunition too!
Keeping promises, making enemies. It behooves me that some of you are ok with funding this wall and the alarming isolationism Trump is imposing. I wonder if he has Mein Kumpf on his night stand.
He is the most bigoted, irrational, hatred-driven, Anti-American except if you're white and born here that we've ever had in office.
Make America Trump's. Any dissenters will have their First Amendment rights pulled right out from under them as Trump attempts to muzzle opinions that differ and his puppeteers tell the media to shut it.
He must be speaking to Kim Jung Un for tips as well as the Mein Kumpf bible. Then there's the honorary US president, Mr. Putin.
The sky is falling,the sky is falling!
Bring in some comfort dogs and Play-Doh quickly!
Let's go to war lol everyone who can run jump or swim in that country is here - Paul Rodriguez
Yup Joe, keep falling back on therapy dogs and play doh every time someone brings up something that falls outside your narrow field of vision.
Eperot People bringing up Hitler should try some play doh... You're the ones with narrow fields of vision. How can you compare ANY American politician to a man who killed millions of people in cold blood... Trump is doing exactly what he promised, which got him elected, and all you liberal cry babies like to throw out propaganda like comparing him to Hitler... Yea ok sounds realistic...
Metsman KGB chief linked to Trump file found dead amid Kremlin cover up claims
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/kgb-chief-linked-to-trump-file-found-dead-amid-kremlin-cover-up-claims-35404816.html
LeRoy Grimace Metsman, I thought everyone who voted for Trump, did so because he "wasn't a politician", and yes he's lied many times. Assassination plots, draining the swamp, Obama wasn't born in the United states and Mexico will pay for the wall. That's just a few , of many. The %20 import tax, will trickle down to us. Here we go again. More "trickle down economics"..... enough of those moves, eventually leads to a great depression. The documentary, called "We're not broke", on Netflix, shows this pattern taking place. It's very interesting, about an hour long. Everyone should check it out.
sparksjbc1964 one must suspend logic in order for all of this to "make sense" ianimal... facts don't matter, it's just what you are made to "feel" is true that matters anymore.... sparks, give up on the idea of logic or "understanding" rational minds, reasoning, deliberation, cooperation have no place in today's American politics... I expect the rates of mental illness to soar among the educated, LOL!
pmnsk "he has to maintain a semblance of a social life on HL."
Just showing what you guys are missing...
Cheap taxes, lots of property, good weather, and freedom... and BBQ.
All that and I even got a higher paying job down here. Less traffic too.
Hackettstown and Dover are going to lose millions in federal aid for looking the other way,On illegal immigrants.they let it get out of hand because they were scared of losing aid for schools and lawsuits.. now maybe the will enforce the law.. maybe start by enforcing a no loitering law... but they can't even handle that...
Not sure about Dover but hackettstown is not a sanctuary town - the municipal courts report people to ICE that are found guilty and they honor immigration holds (bench warrants) don't think that's an issue at all. In addition there's no way Hackettsown or Dover receive millions in federal funding
Hackettstown, Dover, Elizabeth, Newark,Lakewood... get millions in federal aid.. review school budget.. not going to get it anymore.. it's happening sweetheart.. they just refused 7 people at ny airport.. I suggest you read the executive order.
Metsman, the comparisons I've seen to Hitler, while objectionable, are generally to the early 1930's Adolf Hitler who hadn't killed anyone, and at which time no one would have conceived of the horrors to come. He was an anti-establishment figure who generated great fervor among his supporters but alarm and dismay among others.
So some see similarities to that earlier time and fear going down that same road, a road no one wants to go down.
jd2 "Snow isn't falling outside this winter because the snowflakes are flying around nonstop on the forum. Are you saying a number of us are: "An overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own. These people can often be seen congregating in "safe zones" on college campuses."
Why are you worried about the overly sensitive? Do they keep you up at night knowing they might be right and that you really are just a bully? Do you think you can scare them off just by branding them silly little demeaning names?
Well Buttercup, I'm your Huckleberry. Give it your best shot. This is not it. Not even close.
It would only effect Hackettsown if they refused to comply with immigration holds and reporting
In 1939, we refused a boat of German refugees from Hitler's Germany were denied entry to the US. They were forced to return to Europe where many were murdered in the Concentration Camps.
In the 30's post The Depression, we got very US-centric isolationist and put low quotas based on country.
This is the picture of the people at our door that we condemned to death.
Let history repeat itself. If you don't want to vet them, then don't let them in and watch them die.
As long as we overturn Roe v. Wade it will be all right with God.
http://crfimmigrationed.org/index.php/lessons-for-teachers/144-hl5
NOTE: the aforementioned information is from the Constitutional Rights Foundation. They "are a non-profit, non-partisan education organization that seeks to instill in our nation’s youth a deeper understanding of citizenship through values expressed in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Its goal is to educate young people to become active and responsible participants in our society. CRF is dedicated to assuring our country’s future by investing in our youth today."
Therefore, probably a lie to many of you. Or spin. Or manipulation.
Donald Trump should just televise this Bill Clinton speech from 1995 and then simply state "I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message"
Oh, please, please let this go viral. Not one word of commentary needs to be added.
Very short video - about 84 seconds
https://www.c-span.org/video/? c4351026/c
Old Gent Old Gent,the Radical Left has been taking over the Democrat Party for the past 30+ years. However, they have made the most progress doing so since the early 2000s and the takeover is now complete.
Old Gent (and others)
While I didn't watch this clip yet and am not sure exactly what it says, I noticed that the link for it wasn't posted correctly, so I tried to find the one "Old Gent" referenced. I'm not taking any stand, just posting what I believe is the link he meant to post, since I was curious as to what he found important about it:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
Phil D. Phil here's the wording by Clinton.
"All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
Something Obama didn't do much,if anything about..
Thank you Phil.
Nice Old Gent! I hear Fox News is hiring. Get your resume in. ; )
Just saw an info- type commercial which is a take off on one of the ads the Clinton team put on tv during the debates. Tit for tat I guess, but appropriate under the circumstances.
Spring Fever I was just pointing out that we heard all this before and Reagan before him and they still come pouring in. Maybe the Donald will be more successful.
Day 8: DT here: man, I just love signing things…especially breasts. We need more things to grab and sign round here. Here’s one little ditty I did blocking EPA scientists from communicating with the public and the press. Get those facts about global warming off the web site. Destroy that data. Yeah, censorship. I love it. A$$wipes only had science on their side. I’ve got the pen!
Next, do the same for those shmoos at the Department of Agriculture. Loud mouthed freakin farmers always spreading manure. We need chemicals. More pollution. Bad air means good economy. Ask China. I know China.
And here’s another for Department of Health and Human Services stopping all communications with Congress. It’s a swamp anyway.
Meanwhile I EO'd to defund ObamaCare and its working. Stopped all the ads telling people to sign up before the deadline this month. Ha, ha, ha, screw em. OK, we lost big money for some ads, had to pay even if we didn't air. But focus on the important thing. I stopped people from getting health insurance. Less insured Americans because it’s their right. That’s right, I pissed your tax money down the drain cancelling paid-for reminder ads in order to stop people from being insured. Am I the man or what? Spend more money to get less people covered by health insurance. Brilliant!!
But the best, my very best effort is the hiring freeze. But don't freeze the soldiers, nope we gotta hire a bunch of them to shoot those new guns I am building for that nation-building I am not going to do. Wink, wink. Guess what? The prime improvement for the VA is……wait for it……wait…..it’s people! New people. People curing people. Lot's of new people. That’s right, the main way to fix the VA is to hire more people to help our veterans.
Am I great or what. OK, so I had to roll back a few things. But I am still great, right?Do you feel grate again?
Here's a beauty. "Old Gent,the Radical Left has been taking over the Democrat Party for the past 30+ years"
Really. So we are calling Bill Clinton radical left?
Was Obama radical left when he lowered your taxes to a lower rate than Bush Jr? Or when he extended the Bush tax cuts on the rich? Or when he flew drone after drone after drone for 'freedom?"
Bottom line Joe: am I radical left?
Immigration is not the same as ILLEGAL immigration. Damn Republicrats always want to conflate the two, especially when wearing their team-colored blinders.
Nice link btw Old Gent.
justintime Apparently Bill didn't accomplish much in the 90's because when I worked at the chester shoprite in the late 90's there were over a dozen illegal mexicans working there.
Defining snowflakes as "An overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own."
Kinda reminds me of our current President.
SD,the Bill Clinton era Democrats were no way as far left as the Democratic Party is today.
To me,Bill Clinton was the last great President for the people that crossed the aisle to get things done..
I didn't vote or like either Bush.So that card is not in play.
I've always been a Democrat but not anymore.I dislike both parties.
So you don't think the Democratic Party of today isn't far left?Reid,Pelosi etc
Was Sanders far Left and probably would have been President if the DNC didn't screw him?Though, I'm so glad they did.Sanders is a Socialist nut job.
Hillary wasn't really that far left but had to change to get the Sanders vote.
You may or may not be but your party today is radical Left.
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED and this: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-cheney-donald-trump-muslim-ban-extreme?utm_content=buffera0f4d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I'd rather have a socialist but job than a fascist isolationist who is inviting ISIS with his ban on Muslims. This is what ISIS wants to hear. So great job Dump.
It gets more and more crazy: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-say-visas-were-being-revoked-prior-trump-s-executive-n713546?cid=sm_fb_nbcnews
Sycamore,the present Democratic Party.
An extreme left party wanting more entitlements,free college,open borders,political correctness,more government control,no voter ID,no regard for the constitution etc.
I'm a moderate leaning a bit left but things have gotten crazy.
Obama may have had a good likable number upon leaving but a higher percentage of people didn't like the direction the country was going.
That and the DNC choosing a lousy candidate that was supposed to win by a landslide is why Trump is President.
Again,I didn't vote for Trump.I would have preferred 2-3 other GOP candidates but I'm glad he's the President over a corrupt HC.
People wanted change and not continue to Socialism.I don't want the US becoming Europe.
I know,I know Hillary had more votes .CA got her the numbers but it's not the popular vote and states like CA,NY is why.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
Does this make you feel safer? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/28/refugee-family-s-grandmother-detained-on-trump-s-orders.html
We have treated these people shamefully. Hopefully Mr. Trump will see this and make it up to them (instead of blaming the media for reporting it).
Joe
You are a moderate leaning left and you're fine with Trump? OK, I'm pro life but I'm ok with abortion. More alternative reality.
Rethinking my leaning a bit left.I was always that way but maybe just a moderate today.I'm sick of the whole political system.
As far as Trump goes..
With HC as the only other choice ....yes.
Just listen to Bill Clinton in the video above.Same speech as Trump.
Shows just how far left the Democratic Party has gone.I'm not happy about that.
I actually do like many of the things Trump is doing.I give him credit as he is doing what he promised and so quickly.
I'm actually pro choice but am for early abortions only and not paid on the tax payer dime.
And I thought we weren't going to get much snow this winter.... snowflakes are everywhere! At the inauguration, at the airports, blocking traffic..... I wonder where they'll be next?
Trump is doing what he promised to do. We voted for him. Glad he is protecting our borders, and unfunding sanctuary cities. It's good to finally have a WORKING president. Looking forward to American Factories too.
How in any feasible way, is it okay to support the deportation of someone living in this country legally? Say all you want about illegal immigration because those people are technically breaking the law, but these greencard holders did nothing but be born in a certain country. Shameful and immoral are only two of the words that can be used to describe people who supported Trump's decision to do this. Bless the federal judge who had the compassion and intelligence to know that it needed to be blocked. Hopefully that stays.
sparksjbc1964
just watched were not broke. Never really relized how much these people get away with. And trump will not close tax loopholes. If anything it will get worse.
Immigration ban includes green card holders: DHS
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugee-ban-bars-green-card-holders-report
There's so many, very deep tunnels.... miles and miles of them, not to mention many other points of entry. Good luck, with that wall. There goes the social security fund, again. Dubya filled the SS coffers, with a bunch of IOU'S, to start and fund the war, in Iraq. Trump's going to do the same thing, and send the tax payers, something he's exempt from, the bill.
Well, the "green card portion" of that EO is certainly more stringent than I expected, but I don't think it's too unreasonable, given that we've been having islamic terror attacks on our own soil.
"A senior administration official clarified on Saturday afternoon that green card holders from the seven countries affected in the order who are currently outside the U.S. will need a case-by-case waiver to return to the U.S.
Green card holders in the U.S. will have to meet with a consular officer before departing the country, the official said. "
Given recent history, I don't think that's too strong. We aren't taking all their possessions, rounding them up, and putting them in camps. I wouldn't be for that under any circumstances- however, I would be for deporting them, if things got that bad (if islamic terror attacks in-country escalated).
as for this:
"Trump signed an executive action Friday halting the country’s Syrian refugee resettlement program and halting all refugee resettlement for 120 days as well as imposing a 90-day ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The administration says the halt in the resettlement program is designed to give it time to tighten the vetting process for refugees. "
That's a home run. He said he'd do it, we wanted it, we voted him into office to do it. Frankly, I'm surprised it's only 90 days... I'd be shocked if the govt could get a handle on the vetting process in that short a time.
Have you seen the latest EO? It's a GRAND SLAM!
Jeff, right here on HL... and everywhere on all the right/left media outlets, on EITHER side of the political spectrum.. absolutely no way to discuss anything these days - results in name-calling, blaming, judgement, emotional criticism, etc. "positions" are so firmly and emotionally held that rational discussion is truly gone.. It's like being on the elementary school playground.... exhausting - whiners whining about whiners, both from the party that won the election and lost... scary how basic and immature people are - and I am not sure whether/how it could evolve.
Yes, protecting our borders. Pullease. What about folks coming in from the UAE or Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Citizens from those countries are responsible for killing Americans but NONE from the countries on the ban are. Why do you think he left out those three countries hmmmm? Because he does and has business in those countries. See how there's no conflict of interest? Get a clue. So proud to be an American right now. FFS.
Separating facts from fiction:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria
(yes, it's a conservative review. You should read it anyway- especially if you're going consider Schumer's and Pelosi's "tweets" as "facts."
Hey RAS: I totally agree on Saudi Arabia and Egypt: they've gotten a "pass" for far too long. However, while I would be FOR adding them to the list, that would only perturb you even more (even tho you're complaining about them being left off), because in reality you don't want ANY LIST.
I never even saw Schumer's or Pelosi's tweets. So why assume? And you didn't address the issue of refugees coming from those countries that are not in the ban.
I read the article you provided ( thank you) and yes it does sound less hysterical. But then again there's no real live people in that article. And it seems that guidance was insufficient or not timely or accurate to prevent tragic results. The vetting process was already two years worth of work so why "extreme" vetting? Because he said it on the campaign and it sounded good.
Snowflakes will continue to push back. This isn't Trump-Bannon Inc.
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-order
"And you didn't address the issue of refugees coming from those countries that are not in the ban."
Yes, I did: "I would be FOR adding them to the list"
zentravl I just can't believe the righteous right is not upset about the gag orders and the hiring freeze for VA doctors and staff. Outrageous.
"What about folks coming in from the UAE or Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Citizens from those countries are responsible for killing Americans but NONE from the countries on the ban are." By now I am sure we know where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from....
Since 9/11, I believe all terrorism enacted on US soil was not perpetrated from anyone from any of these countries. Which means, up to now, Trump's act would have been totally ineffective. But it looks tough.
So sure, this is about security. Or is it totally........
Imports from:
Iraq $5B
Syria 6M
Iran 79M
Libya 192M
Somalia 1M
Sudan 6M
Yemen 2.4M
Iraq ---- 16B
"I'm actually pro choice but am for early abortions only and not paid on the tax payer dime." Really --- so you are totally against this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#2994c4ad7709
Wow. It's a choice.
Ok,24% are paid by the Gov..
Health reasons,incest or rape,I'm fine with the Gov paying.
I'm also only for first trimester abortions only unless for health,incest or rape..
Joe, how many times have you been pregnant? Seems like you really have a well thought out position.
One now has to have the ability to become pregnant to have an opinion on an abortion matter?
..
Ever read freakonomics on the 1990 crime drop? We need to encourage as many wanted abortions as possible - even if we pay for them. Much cheaper than imprisioning people
"Immigration is not the same as ILLEGAL immigration." Yeah, tell that to the legal immigrants currently stopped at the airports....
And can you please quit using the term Republicrat under the wrong definition. I realize you want to call the word your own but it is not. Sorry.
So, it was A-OK when Clinton and Obama did it, but now that Trump is doing it, it's evil? You people are pathetic
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/the-obama-clinton-ban-on-muslims
"Yeah, tell that to the legal immigrants currently stopped at the airports...."
Hey, if it stops one terrorist...
Let's call it "Universal Immigrant Checks".
whats the appropriate definition - urban dictionary says "A derogitory bastardization of Republican and a Democrat based on the belief that one is just as bad as the other, since they are both controlled by the same special-interests, and so we effectively have a one-party system just like the former Soviet Union."
Why stop with these countries. Why stop with legal immigrants. Let's call it "Universal Checks." Then, for the ones we are still a little unsure of, let's make them wear an armband.....
Can we surveil mosques yet?
Muslim bathrooms?
Nice example of moral relativism Joe. It's ok to kill babies...sometimes? I suppose you also disagree
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."
scottso I just heard a Trump construction company will be dismantling the Statue of Liberty and shipping it back to France. C.O.D.
"NYPD intelligence division already does surveillance on mosques"... in New Jersey
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/nypd_did_no_wrong_in_secretly.html
"Hey, if it stops one terrorist..."
But we'll never know, will we, if Trump's ban actually accomplishes anything UNLESS there is another terror attack. If there are no attacks, Trump will take credit, even if there weren't any terrorists actually stopped from entry.
Sort of like Hitler claiming that the Holocaust and the killing of 6 million Jews was justified since the Jewish conspiracy to control the world was prevented from taking place.
JerryG It is so transparent and hilarious, the liberals now playing the "Hitler card" (Godwin's Law) when they accused conservative of doing it both 4 and 8 years ago.
And the pendulum swings....
Interesting turn from the Koch group: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/koch-network-condemns-trump-ban-on-refugees-and-immigrants/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.95d6868b270e
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment...
The 25th Amendment to
The U.S. Constitution
Here is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 6, 1965, and ratified on Feb. 10, 1967.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
EEEEEEE O, EEEEEEE O... EO comes and they want to come home.
Ooooops. Now that was a little messier than a bad web site for healthcare.....I thought when I saluted and my peeps yelled, Fuhrer, I thought they said "fewer..." so I banned some Muslims.
OK, I know that since 9/11, US attacks have mostly been by disenfranchised Americans, not immigrants or travelers. But if we create chaos and confusion across the country and the world, with religious vendetta overtones, that will help with disenfranchisement. Just got to do it right.
Let's see....To stop terrorism in the US we blocked 7 countries where our terrorists have never came from. Check. Left a few countries out where our terrorists had come from but who do a lot of business with Trump, I mean Amerika. Check. Didn't tell any departments, didn't ask for advice. Check. Blocked a bunch of naturalized citizens, gots some grandmothers, cool.
Spicer told us a little travel inconvenience (you can never go home Grandma.....) shouldn't put us out much. Yeah, that helped..
Google started a fund, now at $4M, to help Trump-stranded Americans as stranded Americans begin to funnel into Boston, NYC, Virginia, and Seattle where a Judge told Trump: step off son. At least for some of the strandee's, and in some cases covering the nation.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-boston-a-late-night-victory-against-trumps-immigration-ban
Trump supporters love it. The world in chaos.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/trump-immigration-ban-syria-muslims-reaction-lawsuits
Once again, the Trump plan to Make America Grate Again: scream, tweet, get feedback, attack scapegoat, don't listen, act, oops, plan, react, retrench, rethink, replan, reflect, retard.
In today's context those words are treasonous yankeefan. Are you proposing a coup?
YF would only propose a coup or revolution if it was to overturn a REPUBLICAN tyrannical govt, not a DEMOCRAT tyrannical govt.
Besides- the left could never do such a thing- they don't believe in private gun ownership ROFL. Where's 2A when you need it? Oh, that's right- you legislated it out of existence LOL.
This environment is becoming even more frenzied than during the election, and throwing even more emotion at it, as is being done today, will surely result in some really bad stuff.
Damn idiotic Republicrats - you all had better get a grip on yourselves because an unfortunate outcome looks to be evermore likely if you can't calm yourselves.
Chuck Schumer's tears remind me of the "weeper of the house", John Boehner. Doesn't work with the ladies, guys...or does it?
We already had a coup when Comey the FBI director reversed his decision and handed the election to Trump and his fascist far right out of the mainstream crazy radicals.
"Really jr? The left has no guns? Sure."
Color me naive, but I'd bet all mine that the right has ALOT more. ALOT. lol
I'm quite sure there's alot of democrats (tho not today's extremely progressive protesting crybaby left) that have guns. Democrats of the 50s and 60s are not remotely like the democrats of today. But in TODAY'S terms of "left" and "right" - yes, the right is exponentially more armed.
Just for sake of discussion, of course. If a revolution didn't happen under Obama, it's not going going to happen under Trump... he's got HALF the country behind him, despite the media coverage of the protests. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
For your morning reading...may not make you feel better....... https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.q3yo6u9xi
JIT, a coup? No, I think that's more of a banana republic kind of thing. I simply indicated that the Constitution wisely provides a remedy for the situation we are clearly in today. Treasonous? Is this now Russia? As for getting a grip...I think I'm pretty calm. But not silent, that would make me complicit.
JR, wrong, as usual. If Trump were removed, we'd still have a Republican VP. Pence's positions are abhorrent to me, but he does seem to at least be reasonably sane.
No both parties should stfu and act like adults.
The executive branch ENFORCES THE LAW. It does not write the law. If trump is taking action that is actually in line with enforcing existing law I see no reason why anyone should be surprised. The opposite should be true, we should be thrilled he's doing the job he was elected to do!
Now if he's not fulfilling his duties then the congress, in conjunction with the judicial, should of course take action.
But what people are arguing over today relates to none of that. All the idiot Republicrats want is to impose their will on those wearing a different color. Children. Snowflakes all of them.
Is a wall an option for enforcing *illegal* immigration? Of course it is! It may be a ridiculous solution but it still addresses enforcement if immigration law. Suspending H1B visa folks (temporarily he says) for additional scrutiny? Again, a stupid waste of time imo but within his purvue to enforce the law.
So if you DONT LIKE THE LAW THEN CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS!
Look at the usually content to pontificate with a snarky attitude JIT using swear words and caps....nice to know that under that preachy air of calm beats the heart of a frightened teenager. Maybe today's market losses have you nervous.
In addition to calling all of my Congressional representatives, I have written checks to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU today.
So, no, this "idiot" will not STFU.
YF,
I'm not talking about removing Trump. I'm talking about removing those who are in power, FROM power. That's when the shooting starts.
Hey JIT:
"And baby
Remember
It's my life and I'll do what I want
It's my mind and I'll think what I want
Show me I'm wrong, hurt me sometime
But some day I'll treat you real fine
(It's my life and I'll do what I want)
Don't push me
(It's my mind and I'll think what I want)
It's my life
(It's my life and I'll do what I want)
And I can do what I want
(It's my mind and I'll think what I want)
You can't tell me
(It's my life and I'll do what I want)"
Don't tell me to stfu, dont' tell me we're all Republicrats, we aren't. Some are Democrat, some are Republican, a few might be Republicrat, and many are something in-between all that.
If EO's were only about enforcing the law, then why were Obama's all wrong and why do you think Trump's are "hands-off." Think those judges pretty much said everything's not quite right.
"Yeah-yeah you're bloody well right
you know you're right to say
Me, I don't care anyway!
Write your problems down in detail
Take them to a higher place
You've had your cry - no, I should say wail
In the meantime hush your face
Right, quite right, you're bloody well right..."
BTW, for those dreaming of impeachment....a reality check...
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials. A simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (at least 218 votes) is required to impeach a U.S. President.
Current House split: 240R 193D
...followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (at least 67 votes).
Current Senate split: 52R 46D 2 Independent
The number of votes required make impeachment difficult. No American President has been removed from office by impeachment.
Funny, I wrote checks to the GOA, NRA, and Heritage Foundation today LOL
(just too much fun poking the bear)
"I have written checks to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU today"
Good. If enough people do that they won't need our tax dollars anymore.
So nothing to complain about, right?
"Left a few countries out where our terrorists had come from but who do a lot of business with Trump"
Blame Obama for the selection of countries subject to the ban...
*HIS* administration is the one that identified them as "countries of concern".
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html
The world is full of assholes these days, and trying *not* to be one when completely surrounded by them is a lot harder than one would think.
How's that for stooping ;-)
For sufferinjustintime from Loudon W. Slight edit by me.
"Call me Strangerdanger, Strangerdanger that's my name
Without a doubt it's all my fault, I'm the one to blame
You say that you're unhappy I do believe it's true
Cause I'm the one, the no good bum
That did it all to you.
I'm so sorry, sorry as a man can be
I'm so guilty, this is my apology
You have been a victim, a pawn in my cruel game
I done you wrong, and I strung you along
And now I'm full of shame
To compensate for damage done
Well there's not much I can do
So I sit and drink and I sit and think
Of all I done to you
You're a martyr, taking all this time
I'm a villain, guilty of a dreadful crime
cry, cry me a river
All your tears and logic, you know they finally made me see
I deserve the shame, I deserve the blame
The guilt belongs to me.
Yes you're innocent
You're as pure as driven snow
You've been had, I'm a cad, at least at last I know
Why do any of you feel responsible for Persons from "another country" ??
They belong to the country they came from ....WE ( AT LEAST ME ) do nto want to support them, their children, their free medical benefits ( I have to pay for mine ) , their free schooling ( my son is still paying his loans off,....why ? )
Trump is better than the last yahoo that continued to give monies to everyone and every country but our own.
Just my opinion.
Steven Steven - I hardly know where to begin - so I'll leave it with this - where did your family immigrate from.............unless you are native american - they came from another country
"unless you are native american - they came from another country"
BULLSH*T.
So, how many generations DOES it take for someone to be an "American", Ms. Smarty-pants? 3? 5? Hmm?????
Guess what genius, those syrian refugees.... they aren't really syrian either... because THEIR families came from ALL OVER THAT AREA....syria, jordan, iraq, turkey......
The IGNORANCE is what I CAN. NOT. ABIDE.
Steven,
Because at the end of the day we're all people. And people from "other countries" right now have it WAY WORSE than any of us can even fathom. It doesn't matter to me where they were born - they are in crisis and need help.
Skippy - Steven did not specify illegals - he referred to all from other countries - Plenty are legal - and I think your belief that they all come in illegally and live off freebies are - perhaps - a bit exaggerated.............
And btw do you know where the shooter in Canada came from?
"And people from "other countries" right now have it WAY WORSE than any of us can even fathom."
Absolutely true. And I have ZERO problem with "helping" them. BUT:
1) unless we help OUR OWN first- especially vets- NO. The VA needs to be fixed, and royally. Plenty of $$$ to be spent THERE FIRST. People who have SERVED their country.
2) Clinton's, Obama's, and Trump's moratoriums were/are TEMPORARY, and I have ZERO problem with re-examing the vetting procedures, to make sure they are as stringent as possible... forgive me if I don't trust APOLOGIST Obama on this one....
3) you DO realize, that the pint you state: "And people from "other countries" right now have it WAY WORSE than any of us can even fathom." is at least partly WHY we try to "police the world", right? It's at least partly WHY we have boots on the ground in other countries (which people on YOUR side constantly disagree with)... so, which is it? Do you want to "help people" or not? No easy answer, right? EXACTLY.
My family was here, they were invaded by the Europeans, then raped murdered , tortured, etc.
I understand people need help, just resent that we as American's seems to be the only ones giving them all a free ride and being financially responsible for them, yet you and I cannot get a free cell phone, education, subsidized housing, free medical care and ZERO accountability to pay any back for the next person that needs help.....All the while our veterans are living on the streets !
Some would say that is just selfish.. ( yeah right )
please site exact sources for proof that immigrants get free cell phone, education, subsidized housing, medical care and proof that none pay into the system...
And btw it is at best doubtful that your family started here............go back a few generations...........
And btw do you know where the shooter in Canada came from?
No clue. BUT... While any shooting like the one in Quebec (6 dead) must be spoken out against, let's not forget the bigger picture:
"killed 49 people and wounded 53 others" in the Orlando nightclub shooting.
...and I'll just stop there.... or not...
San Bernadino, ( 14 people were killed and 22 others were seriously injured)
Ft Hood, (fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.)
9/11, )The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people and the injuries of more than 6,000 others) - and it only took a HANDFUL of them to do it...
.etc etc etc......
Sorry... didn't mean to get in the way of your "alternate reality".
4catmom....
Still waiting on an answer.... HOW MANY generations until we can be OFFICIALLY considered "American" by YOU? 4? How many?
Here's a stunner: if someone was born somewhere else, comes here, and BECOMES A CITIZEN, guess what... I consider them AN AMERICAN. Being the tolerant, decent guy I am. Apparently YOU don't, however... unless they are a VOTING DEMOCRAT, I'd care to wager.
??? How would you know where my family originated from ?
I have no need to provide proof of anything to anyone, you are capable of doing research ( take some initiative to know what is going on in the world outside of town ).
I never stated they do not pay into system, I stated "ZERO accountability to pay any back for the next person that needs help" .....
I am entitled to my opinion as anyone else is on this forum.
... and go back 20,000+ years ago and all modern religions did not exist. Go back further and all of our ancestors came from Africa and were black. Time equalizes all but what do you do here and now is the question???
iJay Here is former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm (D) giving a speech in 2004 on how to destroy America. Very telling.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
kb2755, I have read that before. I have said that about multiculturalism for years. The problem is today they don't come and assimilate to our culture. It was after reading that I started searching other counties to move to, much like my ancestors did because they didn't like the what they saw going on with, the Kaiser. Note the interesting line about controlling immigration.
kb2755, that's an interesting take. I'm not sure to what extent I embrace it, but there is a lot of truth there, agree.
I was more familiar with Lamm on this (from Wikipedia): In 1984, his outspoken statements in support of physician-assisted suicide generated controversy, specifically over his use of the phrase "we have a duty to die." Lamm later explained that he "was essentially raising a general statement about the human condition, not beating up on the elderly," and that the exact phrasing in the speech was "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."
I like PROGRESSIVE, Teddy Roosevelt's take on multi-culturalism:
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
I thought my point was obvious....simple.....all our distant relatives were immigrants once upon a time......though some of mine were turned away and sent back to Germany....I
EVERYONE was an "immigrant" if you go back far enough.... EVEN NATIVE AMERICANS, according to science.... EVERYONE came from the middle east/africa, whether you ask a scientist, a muslim, or a christian.
So what, exactly, is your point?
Everyone is from everywhere so everywhere should just accept everyone? Let us know how all the other countries around the world feel about that one....LOL
3) you DO realize, that the pint you state: "And people from "other countries" right now have it WAY WORSE than any of us can even fathom." is at least partly WHY we try to "police the world", right? It's at least partly WHY we have boots on the ground in other countries (which people on YOUR side constantly disagree with)... so, which is it? Do you want to "help people" or not? No easy answer, right? EXACTLY.
JR - this might be mind boggling for you, but not everyone on "MY" side represents my personal viewpoints. We don't all fit into neat little holes like that and it would be nice if you didn't speak as if we do.
JR, for someone who can't abide ignorance, your reading comprehension is concerning. The section of the amendment I referred to has nothing to do with impeachment. It deals with a President who is incapacitated.
JIT, so sorry you are surrounded by **sholes.When everyone but you is crazy it must be soooo lonely. Have you considered getting a pet?
Mark, have you not even found one friend to chat with down there? Shocking, considering your winning personality and ability to focus (some might say obsess) on a single issue. At least you'll always have HL
Clearly Bannon is running the show. He makes Cheney/Rumsfeld look like Abbot and Costello. Dangerous man intent on blowing up America.
Our relatives who were immigrants wanted to become Americans. They did not want to kill Americans ("Infidels").
They came here to work hard, and to EARN a better life. If they had no sponsor (for room and board) or if they were in poor health, were sent back.
They were eager to learn English and assimilate.
Times have changed.
Most of these new immigrants/refugees are expecting our tax dollars to feed them, shelter them, and set them up with free insurance and housing.
Lady Liberty was NOT meant to be a symbol for FREE LOADERS.
"They were eager to learn English and assimilate."
Not true at all. Most lived in ethnic communities made up of other people with a shared nationality and held on to the customs and traditions of their homelands. Most did not learn fluent English either. The generation BORN TO these immigrants were the ones who felt a true desire to assimilate into the larger culture and hence learned English. Just like today.
"Most of these new immigrants/refugees are expecting our tax dollars to feed them, shelter them, and set them up with free insurance and housing."
Really? Have you met enough to know that most are expecting these things? I work in an industry heavy with immigrant labor and these people are the total OPPOSITE of what you suggest. They work harder than most "legal" Americans I know of and they don't complain. They carpool, live in shared apartments, support local businesses. Using your own words against you, "They came here to work hard, and to EARN a better life." I'm sorry you refuse to realize this.
"Lady Liberty was NOT meant to be a symbol for FREE LOADERS."
Every generation in our history has been saying virtually the same thing about the "latest" crop of immigrants, conveniently forgetting that they were once in the unenviable position themselves.
"Mark, have you not even found one friend to chat with down there?"
Everybody down here was smart enough to vote for Trump, so no need to argue with any of them. We're all generally happy too... don't get the negative vibe, name calling, and sky is falling feeling I see from a lot of you.
But why single me out? Many people have continued to post here after moving away. Scared of the differing viewpoint and want just another echo chamber?
Geez... Your point has a paper floor that you can not stand up on ....
How can you back peddle when your comments are on the forum ?
you stated ( and it is here on the forum )
" please site exact sources for proof that immigrants get free cell phone, education, subsidized housing, medical care and proof that none pay into the system..."
That is not making a point, that is challenging someone's statement ( apparently anywhere else but here )
As I stated previously, I am entitled to my opinion, no interest in attacking people, just expressing my opinion .
Except your opinion is based on a complete fabrication, which you accept as fact because it's convenient for you to do so. That is, however, how this administration currently operates, so I can understand your confusion.
Read about the history of immigrants across the globe. A common thread is that only when school education forces a first language (such as English in our schools) do immigrants change. I do agree it is a legitimate argument to discuss immigration in our modern times, should people get this historical pass or not???
Yeah, Mark, everyone down there is generally happy...
http://www.ibtimes.com/charleston-shooting-south-carolina-has-19-active-hate-groups-including-kkk-chapters-1972964
Oh no, an anecdote!
I'm on the opposite side of the state from Charleston. Would you prefer I hang out with them or here on HL?
Are the gangs in Newark and Camden representative of your values?
Yep, securing our borders (through a *temporary* ban while more rigid vetting is put in place) obviously the same as having a lynch mob.
Just taking exception to your rosy "everyone's generally happy here"...
Meanwhile, more on Bannon, who is really pulling the Trump puppet strings...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/stephen-bannon-miller-trump-refugee-ban-islamophobia-white-nationalist
If it's so okay and good why do it in secret? Why without input from those who should have reviewed the order? Hmmm? Cause he's a douchebag of the highest order and is pandering to a narrow base. Heil Dump!
Oh, and not to mention it's probably unconstitutional. But let's not let that stop him. Heil Dump!
"If it's so okay and good why do it in secret?"
Do what in secret? He campaigned for MONTHS on doing exactly this.
"Oh, and not to mention it's probably unconstitutional."
There's probably poor wording in the EO, but all he has to do to make it rock solid Constitutional is just say "no immigration... period." That power is definitely within the purview of the Federal government. Would you prefer that?
The words "Muslim", "Islam", and "Christian" are nowhere to be found in the actual EO.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
In fact, it tries to *protect* those of minority religion in their home countries by prioritizing their visa approvals.
"the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."
"Blame Obama for the selection of countries subject to the ban..." Yeah baby. Cuz your man Trump can't fix that......
"So, how many generations DOES it take for someone to be an "American", Ms. Smarty-pants? 3? 5? Hmm?????" Zero...... Anyone can be American. You're the proof......
"The VA needs to be fixed, and royally." So why did Trump freeze hiring on people that can help the VA? You know, like Doctors...... Has he rescinded that little beauty yet.
"I understand people need help, just resent that we as American's seems to be the only ones giving them all a free ride." Actually, the countries offering the most help to Syrian refugees would be Sweden and Germany....We are not even close to being in the free ride business for Syrian refugees. We are uncharitable in this regard thus far, and right now, getting worse.
And thank you jr for the list of terrorist acts. Think you left a few out but let's see: Orlando nightclub -- The shooter was born in New York. He is American. His parents are Afghan. Not blocked.
San Bernardino -- shooter was born American to parents of Pakistani descent. His wife was legally here from Pakistan (and yes, probably something needed to change in the vetting, and probably has....) Not blocked.
Ft Hood, Killer born in Virginia to parents who immigrated from the West Bank, Palestine. Not blocked.
Like I said, none from the countries we are blocking from. And most of the parents would not be blocked.
"The problem is today they don't come and assimilate to our culture." "Most of these new immigrants/refugees are expecting our tax dollars to feed them, shelter them, and set them up with free insurance and housing."
OK folks, I think you are confusing your bias and hatreds. Here's a primer for you....
Muslims --- we hate them because they all want to kill us. That's why we set a muslim ban on countries our killers did not come from while inviting those from countries where US terrorists have come from. It's Obama's fault that Trump acts this way.
Mexicans --- we hate them because they are lazy except when they are raping, robbing and killing us. Or when they are taking the jobs that we need but won't take. That's the wall to stop any Mexican who can't swim, walk around, take a boat, or dig tunnels from getting here.
Most other places ---- we hate them because they are being imported by the new world order to take our jobs. Trump hasn't fixed this one yet.
Russia --- we like them now. Pootey, pootey, pootey.
Now, there is only one common thread for all of the above. Note that no one wants to assimilate. "Most of these new immigrants/refugees are expecting our tax dollars to feed them, shelter them, and set them up with free insurance and housing." That's why you never see them working, looking for work or even speaking English.
None of these generalities is accurate and most are glaringly false. And confusing your hatreds really makes these falsehoods stand out.
If you got rid of all illegal aliens with a magic wand, do you really think your life would magically get better? Better job? Less taxes? Better government services? More welfare for you? Do you really think you are safer now that we banned these countries? Are you having troubles communicating in English (beyond the grammar police :>) as you move around the country? Does the fact that someone does not want to be just like you keep you up at night?
The ban is a joke that just makes the US look small and scared. Extreme vetting. Have at it. Any sound idea to improve vetting works for me. Just don't wall off the US, increase the danger of our kids serving in Muslim lands and elsewhere, and piss off allies helping us in our war on terrorism before you get your act together on how to vet (or whether current vetting is bad....which, of course, Trump has never proven ---- with actual facts.)
The wall will do nothing that the economy isn't already doing. It's a grandstand political ploy to catch your fancy. Illegal aliens a problem? Just put it on the employer, invoke E-Verify across the land, make it cheap and ez for employers to use --- problem mostly solved.
"Everybody down here was SMART enough to vote for Trump"
Hmmm, l was thinking of another descriptor.
"Are showing ones finances part of the vetting process?" He will never show his taxes. Where is Snowden when you need him. Or Putin....
As a descendant of 7 Revolutionary Patriot non-English speaking immigrants, it does seem like there are a lot of "alternative facts" floating around.
If you want to start attacking the most seriously culturally non-adoptive then you would want to start with the hideously terroristic group, the Amish. Yeah, that's as effective as barring a 5 year old US citizen.
Sure, this is all really about safety.
GC "Hmmm, l was thinking of another descriptor."
... and that would fit right in with your (by your I'm primarily referring to you, SD, YankeeFan, Happiest Girl, and maybe a few other) childish MO of calling people names, or descriptors, or whatever else floats your boat to deflect from the issues.
Maybe SD can put something to song lyrics to help you out.
Former Bush administration official Eliot Cohen writes in The Atlantic, “Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and those around him. It will probably end in calamity — substantial domestic protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment.”
“Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character,"
I've never seen a better description of the delicate snowflakes.
Love when things backfire: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-twitter-question_us_58903d4fe4b02772c4e9017b
Happiest girl - The reality is that the only ones with the power to stand up to Mr. Trump are congressional Republicans. Those of us who have a Republican congressman may want to contact him/her. Nothing will happen right away, but in time....?
JR, Trump may not be your guy, as you have said, but you and he certainly share personality traits, e.g. the impulse to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you.
SD, did you think I was calling you an asshole? Or you yankeefan? If so then you think too highly of yourselves.
This entire environment is completely toxic, and there are far too many folks willing to participate in discussions that have zero relevance to the relevant topics of the day. Instead a great many see a chance to "play the game", to hit back at Trumps manipulative and emotion-triggering rhetoric with their own emotional mumbo jumbo.
I said we are surrounded by assholes because those folks are taking up the majority of social "discussion" today.
Is there something wrong with sticking to reality and not just playing the us vs them game?
This thread is unreadable. I think liberals just like to listen to everything CNN and other leftist media groups say. You're the ones going insane while the rest of us have kept cool and are just watching things play out. It's really not as bad as the toxic media likes to make it. Give our president more than 2 weeks to work. Where were all you cry babies when Bush sent a few thousand of our troops to their deaths with BS intel... Oh no... Some immigrants got held up for a few hours at airports while stuff was sorted out... It's the end of the world...
Trump is a spoiled rich kid who is also a bully. Watch what he says and his choice of words Watch what he does and how he does it. He belittles his adversaries and lies. He and his cronies offer up alternative facts. He is a disgrace not only to independents, democrats, conservatives, liberals and increasingly republicans. Just look at his poll numbers.
Look at history and you will find time periods like now. Weimar Germany after WW1 for example. Hitler rose to power with the help of the brown Shirt thugs who trusted him. He downgraded the independent media. He got control and eventually disbanded the unions. Aligned with the military industrial complex Hitler promised to make Germany great again and we all know what happened. Trump is putting the US on the road to ruin.
If you do understand this watch what happens. In six months there will be a "huge" deal of great buyer remorse.
"the impulse to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you."
Pot calling kettle black... the Trump voters aren't the ones crying like babies and throwing tantrums like 2 year olds.
Actually, I've never seen a 2-year old throw a temper tantrum THIS bad....
"Where were all you cry babies when Bush sent a few thousand of our troops to their deaths with BS intel... "
Ummm....I'm pretty sure most liberals (and even some conservatives) were against the war in Iraq.
Families that had been vetted over a two year time period and flown 18 hours to their *new* home and sent back were not *inconvenienced*. They were devastated as would you be if it happened to you.
"Ummm....I'm pretty sure most liberals (and even some conservatives) were against the war in Iraq."
Yes indeed, and there were many protests- everywhere- including right here in little ol' Hackettstown. But Bush was duly elected, so all the chaos... passed. And it shall pass again this time.... it might pass like a kidney stone, but it will pass.
I'm sure they're not as devastated as the families who's loved ones got shot up in this country by wackos who support ISIS...
Trump is well known for lying and throwing temper tantrums. Maybe his followers are just following his lead? And they call progressive thinking people, snowflakes. Now that's funny. I can't tell the difference, between "president" Trump, Truth Trump, Trump Trump, alternative truth Trump, and baby Trump. I'm still waiting for him to "stop all the corruption in politics".... never going to happen, as we now see.
"Maybe his followers are just following his lead? "
Trump voters aren't the ones foaming at the mouth, walking around dressed up like vaginas, destroying property, and torturing people. Hillary voters are. :)
"I'm still waiting for him to "stop all the corruption in politics".... never going to happen, as we now see."
If you're just figuring that out now, you've got a long way to go, I'm afraid...
Today in senate testimony Trump's budget director nominee Rep Mick Delvaney (R-SC) said he would cut Social Security and Medicare.
Are Trump's supporters feeling great yet?
Except being outraged at the Constitution being trampled all over isn't the same as whining. It's being a citizen. Those with their mouths shut now aren't just "letting it play out," their clenching their sphincters and praying their guy doesn't get kicked out of the White House on his orange ass after two weeks.
"Except being outraged at the Constitution being trampled all over"
Because that's NOT how the Trump voters have felt for the last 8 years. (I'll even say 16 and include W Bush in there). Riiiiiiight......
The "outrage at the Constitution being trampled all over" is PRECISELY one of the reasons Trump WON.
I don't think Trump has done anything yet that he didn't tell us he would do before his election. We are not used to having a politician, do what they said they would do.
It's Refreshing !!!
kb, you might want to start with one of the many Trump Hotels that he still owns while in office.
sigh... double-standard indeed.... perhaps we should call it "selective reasoning" so as not to hurt the delicate snowflake's feelings....
"you might want to start with one of the many Trump Hotels that he still owns while in office."
Specific section/amendment being violated, please?
Trump won the electoral college. Clinton made a mistake on PA, MI and WI. Comey in the FBI reversed his decision and gave the election to Trump.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are being destroyed by Trump and his fascist cronies.
Obama had his faults. In fact some of his actions are now used by Trump (Executive Orders) but that does not make it right. Look to Hitler in Germany and what the President in Turkey is doing now to understand what Trump is attempting to do to the USA.
Organize, protest, call Trump out and hold him accountable, register to vote and prepare for the midterms in Nov 2018. Trump is trying to destroy the middle class. Just look at what is cabinet nominees want to do with Social Security and Medicare.
"The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are being destroyed by Trump and his fascist cronies."
...said the millennial communist.... ROFL
JR, stop. Obama slowed down one type of visa for people in Iraq due to two al-Qeada operatives being found posing as refugees in Kentucky.
Tell me, what evidence did Trump have to not just limit visas, but also ban travel from and green card citizens of seven countries that have not been responsible for any mainland US terrorism in at least two decades?
There is more than enough cause for outrage.
JR is ROFL while our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. Just remember people like this guy when the brown stuff really hits the fans.
For the record I am a registered republican who supported other republicans in the primary and in 2008 and 2012. I am not blindly loyal to any party or individual who thinks this is a reality TV show and is trying to build a cult of personality around him like Hitler and Stalin since you mentioned the communists
Focus on the issues and keep the conversation clean. Present the facts. No attacks .
"JR is ROFL while our founding fathers are rolling in their graves"
They've been doing that for decades, and especially the last 16 years. YOUR NOT REALIZING THAT IS A YUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
AND... at least Trump is not a career politician like all those you love so much... he is a self-made (family-made, whatever) person, going to DC. NOT a Bernie Sanders who never held a REAL job in his life. Trump doesn't NEED the money, or the hassle. In that way, being a business man and normal (albeit rich) citizen puts him far closer to the founding fathers than ANY career politician of the last 50 years. The founders NEVER intentioned anyone to be a politician for their entire lives... quite the OPPOSITE...
And no, I'm not comparing Trump to the Founding Fathers... but he IS closer than Bernie, Hillary, Bush, and Obama. By a long shot.
The actual Executive Order can be read online. Everyone actually read it?
When you do, check out the TTPA of 2015 and the nations listed in Obama's Executive orders in both 2014 and 2015.
The truth is in reading it for yourself.
Relax... Obama didn't act like Hitler either.
You have to pass (sign) the executive order before you know what's in it. Didn't you know Vote2020? ;-)
"You have to pass (sign) the executive order before you know what's in it. Didn't you know Vote2020? ;-)"
PERFECT!!! LOL!!!
Interesting, the author of the "travel ban" is Jewish...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/stephen-miller-immigration-trump-administration/index.html
Neil Gorsuch.
"...with a record of strictly interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Gorsuch, 49, sailed through an earlier confirmation process for a spot on the federal appeals court in Denver.
Only weeks after his nomination in 2006, the Senate confirmed him by voice vote. The American Bar Association rated him as "unanimously well qualified" at the time.
Gorsuch has a sterling legal pedigree. He clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He also served as a clerk on the second most important appeals court in the country, in Washington D.C., for conservative Judge David Sentelle."
NPR, I assume the source meets everyone's "criteria"
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/511850519/who-is-neil-gorsuch-trumps-first-pick-for-the-supreme-court
I don't think I've ever heard a more rational explanation of what a judge is supposed to be...
"I don't think I've ever heard a more rational explanation of what a judge is supposed to be..."
... and from his comments tonight, upon being nominated:
"I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."
"Trump doesn't NEED the money, or the hassle. In that way, being a business man and normal (albeit rich) citizen puts him far closer to the founding fathers than ANY career politician of the last 50 years."
And I thought Trump was delusional. This is too rich.
Trump is right. Look what happened to France and Germany. These "refugees" need to be closely vetted.
Refugee immigration: Paris: 2016
Video
Footage [was] taken in the Avenue de Flandres, 19th Arrondissement, near the Stalingrad Metro Station in Paris as well as areas in close proximity… Homeless immigrants, undocumented or waiting for a decision of their asylum application, pass the time in the city. Crime and rape is rampant, mass brawls and riots made the news as fights broke out near the Stalingrad metro station.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/paris-mass-refugee-immigration/
Keeping the court balanced (unless of course you're a wacko progressive nutjob who thinks Ginsberg is "moderate" LOL)
Mark Mc, that sounds very reasonable given all the other stuff being thrown about these days. Strange that I'm impressed by someone saying they are actually going to do what their job entails lol.
Let's hope that Trump's nominee for SCOTUS is a mainstream and open minded person who uses his experience and skills to protect all our citizens and our rights.
Time will tell.
All justices are supposed to rule on the law as written regardless of "mainstream" opinion. It's the Congress that should read and respond to public views, not the SCOTUS, and amend the law as needed.
JIT, so, Citizens United is an example of that? You honestly believe SCOTUS decisions aren't politicized?
Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that began as a challenge to various statutory provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), known as the "McCain-Feingold" law. The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[13] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.[14] After that hearing, the Court requested re-argument specifically to address whether deciding the case required the Court to reconsider those earlier decisions in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC. The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns.[15]
A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[16] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. It concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The 90-page dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will... do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that the Court's holding that BCRA §203 was facially unconstitutional was ruling on a question not brought before it by the litigants, and so claimed that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." Stevens concluded his dissent with:
At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.
Trump's nominees should even be considered for confirmation. A president shouldn't be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS justice in his first year.
Gadfly 
"Trump's nominees should even be considered for confirmation. A president shouldn't be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS justice in his first year."
You mean like Bill Clinton did? And Obama did?
The double-standard must be becoming really embarrassing for your side at this point. Clinton and Obama can have temporary travel bans, but Trump can't.
Schumer can agree with travel bans when it's Clinton and Obama, but not when it's Trump.
Now only democrats should be allowed to nominate SCOTUS judges on their first terms? You guys just keep changing the rules as you go along. "Ban the electoral college"??? The list goes on and on and on....
Would have loved to see the private swimsuit competition he made the SCOTUS nominees compete in before his announcement last night. The Senate Democrats need to do their duty and filibuster this confirmation the same way Republicans did to Garland.
And JR, Clinton and Obama both had just cause for travel restrictions and they only applied to a very narrow field. Again tell me the justification for a travel ban on seven countries that have been responsible for zero terrorist attacks in the United States in decades.
Sycamore,
I'll tell you what... YOU tell me what it was that gave Clinton & Obama's actions "just cause", and then I'll tell you...
Orlando nightclub shooting. (killed 49 people and wounded 53)
San Bernadino, ( 14 people were killed and 22 others were seriously injured)
Ft Hood, (fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.)
9/11, )The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people and the injuries of more than 6,000 others) - and it only took a HANDFUL of them to do it...
...not to mention all the various troubles the european countries are having with the huge influx of immigrants/refugees.... crime, rape, murder, and of course don't forget PARIS MASSACRE (128 dead).... we are trying to PREVENT that from happening here. Perhaps if the European countries hadn't been so BLINDLY welcoming, they would have the troubles they have now. We aren't closing the borders- we are TEMPORARILY pausing immigration of these peoples until the vetting process can be improved FOR OUR SAFETY.
Sanctuary cities: you know what? I'm ALL FOR THEM... on one condition:
A WALL BE BUILT AROUND THEM. If San Francisco, et al wants the refugees, they can have them.... and KEEP THEM. Then let's see what those cities look like in 6-12 months.
(HINT: just take a look at the Paris video I posted above, and many videos of Germany and what it's turned into).
yankeefan, I'm not sure what your issue is but we *do* have a rule of law in this country, and under a rule of law there are supposed to be, you know, rules. Those rules are clearly defined in our Constitution and executed by our three branches of government. Of course you know this.
Not sure about the case you just cited, but the proper role of the judiciary is to determine whether or not a law violates the constitution. The *Constitution*, not public opinion. Let me repeat that: The SCOTUS decides based on the Constitution, not public opinion. They are *not* authorized to MAKE law, they only decide whether or not a law meets the criteria set forth in the Constitution. If they decide a law doesn't meet the intent of the Constitution then they decree it is invalid and the Congress must then rewrite the law so that it will pass muster.
What (I believe) you fail to understand is that if the Constitution itself doesn't provide the guidance you desire then, by law, the Constitution itself needs to changed. So why don't we? What stops our legislators from doing the very thing they are supposed to do? I've written several times recently that all the emotional nonsense going around today is completely misguided - it's the Congress that should get the bulk of our irate attention because they are the ones tasked with writing the laws to give you the stuff you want. Not the Executive, not the Judiciary.
So, do you honestly believe that we can have a society run by a rule of law that changes with the wind, based on the "feelings" and mood of the country? And if you do believe that that's OK, do you not think that those in power would abuse it to no end? Like how things are done today perhaps? ;-)
And I hope you realize that the powers of the Executive branch have steadily increased over time because of this flagrant disregard for the Constitution. You didn't mind when Obama wielded those powers, I'm sure, but now that Trump has them you're up in arms. Really? Where we are is entirely predictable because we've not followed the rule of law as put forth in the Constitution.
So thanks a lot yankeefan, for it's your mentality that has given the Presidency the power to allow Trump to do things you are so afraid of. You've doomed us all! ;-)
JR,
So just because a sitting president nominates a SCOTUS justice, congress should have to consider that nominee for confirmation?
As any lawyer or judge will tell you deciphering what the lawmakers mean or want is difficult given all the loopholes in almost all legislation. Therefore courts must have leeway to make decisions that are in the best interests of a diverse and secular society so that the privacy, liberties and rights of all citizens are protected.
"JR,
So just because a sitting president nominates a SCOTUS justice, congress should have to consider that nominee for confirmation?"
Only if the president is a democrat, apparently.
JR, again--tell me what terrorist attacks were perpetrated by citizens of the country's currently under the travel ban.
FT. HOOD: Shooter was an American citizen (Palestinian parents).
PULSE NIGHTCLUB: Shooter was an American citizen (parents were from Afghanistan)
SAN BERNADINO: Both shooters were Pakistani, one was an American citizen and the other was a green card holder.
9/11 HIJACKERS: 15 were from Saudi Arabia, the other four were form United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon.
I'll add the Boston bombing so you don't have to: Bombers were from Kyrgyzstan.
Here's the seven countries on the banned list:
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
Sudan
Yemen
Somalia
So exactly none of the countries of origin of these shooters/bombers/terrorists who weren't American citizens, are on the ban list.
So tell me again. Why are they banned?
"So tell me again. Why are they banned?"
Trump has no business interests in any of those countries.
" if the Constitution itself doesn't provide the guidance you desire then, by law, the Constitution itself needs to changed. So why don't we? What stops our legislators from doing the very thing they are supposed to do? "
TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY.
I've said it over and over. It's been done before, several times. There IS a path to change the Constitution. You want 2A repealed? (as an example, the issue could be anything) Great! Simply follow the "instructions":
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.[2] The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union.
See, the problem is- you can't. If the change wanted is TRULY popular enough, it CAN be done. But it's not, so instead you would rather forgo the Constitution and have judges pass laws from the bench (NOT in their job description.) And that behavior is a large part of Trump's popularity and subsequent win.
Sycamore, oh you'll get no argument from me- I think all those other countries SHOULD be on the TEMPORARY ban list!! Especially Saudi Arabia... which of course will never happen... by ANY president, democrat or republican. Because OIL.
Jr, did you even notice what your party did during the past 6 years? Extreme obstruction has been the rule of the day. Obstruction before governing. No action before compromise.
Did you notice what your party said? McConnell's initial fatwa on Obama oh those many years ago and oft repeated. Over 500 filibusters since Obama hit office. For judges alone, the number of filibusters and obstruction efforts under Obama hit new records: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-republican-obstruction-supreme-court_us_5755956fe4b0ed593f14ef69
Garland was the worst. They didn't even let him have his day before Congress. That was just flippin weak, low, and backhanded. Just shameful behavior and certainly not an example of leadership. Sandbox politics.
And tossing up your equivalent evil from across the aisle proves the Democrats point over the current nominee.
So now we have Trump's nominee. Trump who agreed that Obama didn't deserve a court nominee during his Presidency. The guy is qualified, he will be confirmed. There will be some pain along that way. It will have nothing to do will qualification and everything to do with the ramifications of being "shutheads" for the past 6 years. I would say how Trump acts during this will be the measure of the man but let's face it, this man has been measured and he comes up short every time.
So now we have Trump's nominee. And on the important stuff, the qualifications, HL says......wait for it...
"All justices are supposed to rule on the law as written regardless of "mainstream" opinion" the plain vanilla generic analysis of meaninglessness.
"I'm impressed by someone saying they are actually going to do what their job entails." OK, I'm more impressed but has the author actually seen someone say they are going to not do what their job entails (before they get the job?).
We don't seem to really have any reasons to say no except that the guy has a conservative read to the Constitution. Wait, how can that be. Isn't there only one read on the Constitution. You know, the way it was written. Dream on McDuff, dream on.
Democracy is a struggle. It's a fight. Hopefully we still respect each other as Americans before, during and after a tussle. On this one, Trump will pave the way for future nominations with a PR win over the Democrats. If the Democrats proceed, they can send Trump the message of what happens if he goes uber right next time with a PR win over Trump.
Not really about the qualifications IMO.
Jono, you forgot to finish your thought:
...based on the Constitution.
"Because I say so" isn't in the Constitution btw ;-)
Exactly, ianimal. But JR said Trump's wealth means he has the best interest of the country and Constitution at heart.
Forgot to add the Nice, France, massacre was a Tunisian resident living in France. The mastermind of the Le Bataclan attack was Belgian and his family was from Morocco.
"Exactly, ianimal. But JR said Trump's wealth means he has the best interest of the country and Constitution at heart."
I said no such thing. I said his NOT being a career politician made him more like the founding fathers IN THAT WAY. No "alternative facts" from you!
I agree based on the Constitution in its entirety including the amendments that follow based on the needs of the people. That is why we have amendments.
You know I am still nursing a grudge from all the terrorist acts the German perpetrated during WWI and WWII. We need to ban travel and immigration for Germans from any country they are in. We need to monitor all German churches as well as any establishment offering beer to the public. Octoberfest, that pure Aryan propaganda platform, is cancelled across the US.
If it gets to the point where we have to go in, we must remember to take all the bratwurst and strudel for payment before we leave.
So we need to add France and Morocco to the list. Good.
The bottom line is this: there have been islamic terrorist attacks (even tho the FORMER president and administration refused to use the term) on OUR SOIL, and people are concerned. The so-called "ban" is NOT- it is a PAUSE. TEMPORARY. But you guys conveniently overlook that little detail. It is NOT a "muslim ban", it is a refugee and immigration PAUSE. Don't worry, they'll be pouring into the country again in another 4 months or so. Hopefully, better vetted.
And don't even start with the "how many will die in those 4 months" card, because I'll just tell you that 360,000 abortions will be performed during that time.
Sycamore you sound like someone who thinks nothing should be done and we should just risk letting more people come here to become citizens who will eventually snap and blow up people because they support ISIS. I don't know what you're trying to argue. These countries listed have heavy ISIS activity. If you think these people haven't infiltrated our country through our immigration programs, then you're living in a bubble.
What happens if a Trump building gets bombed, on foreign soil? Is this considered an "act of terrorism", a personal attack on one of his businesses, "that he knows nothing about", or both, thus using our military to protect his family's personal assets?
To finish my thought that is what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they created the concept of amendments.
8pm supreme court prime time pre-empt. 10am the next day press conference.
can't we just open up the ALT network (ALL Trump network) and let him go 24/7 on a single channel?
"8pm supreme court prime time pre-empt. 10am the next day press conference."
Wait, weren't you guys complaining about Trump not having enough press conferences not too long ago?
SD,
"extreme obstruction". Yup. And that's how our government is set up, ON PURPOSE. If it was the democrats trying to obstruct (like they are currently doing, boycotting cabinet votes), that's fine... in the end, the republicans will have the numbers (thanks to the VOTERS) to pretty much get what they want in the end... and if they didn't, that would ALSO be because of the VOTERS. See how that works? Pres, Senate, and House- all republican. Because of the VOTERS. It's the VOTERS "fault" Obama did not have a democrat majority his last 6 years (and DID have a democrat majority his first 2 years)... If enough VOTERS decide to vote in enough dems 2 years from now, you'll have your "extreme obstruction" back. AS DESIGNED.
I bet you'll be a BIG FAN of it then, tho.
JIT said:
Not sure about the case you just cited, but the proper role of the judiciary is to determine whether or not a law violates the constitution. The *Constitution*, not public opinion. Let me repeat that: The SCOTUS decides based on the Constitution, not public opinion. They are *not* authorized to MAKE law, they only decide whether or not a law meets the criteria set forth in the Constitution. If they decide a law doesn't meet the intent of the Constitution then they decree it is invalid and the Congress must then rewrite the law so that it will pass muster.
If you aren't sure about this case, you should be. In essence, it treats corporations like individuals, and allows them to make political contributions. This from the US News website, although you can find the explanation anywhere, but it's "dumbed down", just for you:
In its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court opened the campaign spending floodgates. The justices' ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate.
The result has been a deluge of cash poured into so-called super PACs – particularly single-candidate PACs, or political action committees – which are only nominally independent from the candidates they support. What’s more, the legal protections for corporations mean much of this spending, known as "dark money," never has to be publicly disclosed.
A recent analysis of the 2014 Senate races by the Brennan Center for Justice found outside spending more than doubled since 2010, to $486 million. Outside groups provided 47 percent of total spending – more than the candidates’ 41 percent – in 10 competitive races in last year’s midterms.
"The premise that the Supreme Court was relying on, that these groups would be truly independent of the candidates themselves, is very questionable," says Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, one of three Democrats on the six-member Federal Election Commission.
Weintraub, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003, has been a vocal advocate for establishing stronger disclosure rules to straighten out what she says is a contradiction in the court’s ruling.
The court effectively has said a donation of $1,000 does not, legally speaking, indicate a stronger association with a candidate than a donation of $10. So even when a candidate is aware of a huge donation to his or her single-candidate PAC, it’s not considered a problem.
Think that's what the Founders intended?
And then:
So thanks a lot yankeefan, for it's your mentality that has given the Presidency the power to allow Trump to do things you are so afraid of. You've doomed us all! ;-)
I promise to only use my superpowers for good. And in the unlikely event of a water landing, your seat cushion can be used as a flotation device.
JR and Metsman, I'm still waiting for you guys to give me the hard evidence gained by the Trump administration, re: the seven countries on the list, that they need to have travel bans for a set amount of time to further vet immigrants from those countries. Show me the attacks citizens of these countries perpetrated. Explain why none of the countries who do produce terrorists are not on the list. Further, explain why we shouldn't have a complete travel ban on immigration considering refugees can move more freely around Europe and are more likely to filter in from Germany, France, Italy, etc.
You guys are the ones waiting for something to happen (which it will, since we've now had our administration point fingers all the while ignoring countries that are particularly troublesome but, y'know, make our Prez $$$), so you can finally go AHA! and really lay in the discrimination and hatred.
Also I'm going to start TYPING LIKE THIS because apparently it's the ONLY WAY to have CERTAIN PEOPLE process RELEVANT INFORMATION because their brains have been SO MOLDED by the ALT-RIGHT and FOX NEWS.
Sycamore.... you didn't read the EO did you? The EO doesn't list seven countries. Obamas well thought EOs did. Kudos to Barrack!
Your "knowledge" of the Judicial branch is weak. You'd like judges( that interpret the law) to fit a secular, changing society. Really? You want judges to apply their view and not the LAW?
You don't like the law. Change it in Congress.
Follow the blueprint.
Lead, Follow or Leave.
Gonna be a long 8 years for ole sycamore!!!
and fun to watch. when your healthcare gets better and more affordable-----turn it down or protest it..... please
Businesses in US may not be allowed to do business in countries that may be under sanctions.
As an example, my employer cannot do business with cuba, north korea, ivory coast, liberia, libya, serbia, sudan, and syria. Saudi Arabia is ok, as is Somalia and yemen.
Denise Trump States McConnell should go nuclear if needed with supreme Court nominee. Thank you Mr. President for giving Senator Turtle the public cover (or pressure) to get this done.
yankeefan, sorry but I didn't comment on that particular case. I was attempting to reiterate the way the prosses is designed to operate, not validate that the process is broken as you've pointed out.
Again, my mind looks for solutions and not necessarily work-arounds. The answer to fixing a politicized SCOTUS isn't to just accept it (along with the obvious manipulations that go with it) but to fix it. The way you fix it is to hold people accountable, but in the modern "progressive" world where only opinion matters and not law how to do that? IMO we do it by going back to the baseline, which I described above. Follow a process that everyone agrees with and not just the process of those currently in power.
The voters did not decide in Nov 2106. It was the electoral college and that is the truth not an alternative fact. Yes, the conservatives are in the driver at least for the next two years and many misguided people will get what they deserve.
Those who depend on Social Security and Medicare will get screwed with reduced benefits and a much longer time to work for full monthly payout. Probably 72. Unions will be lulled into submission and become less important. The cost of health care will not go down. Health privacy will disappear and the government will get involved in your most private decisions that should be up to individuals, spouses, families and their medical providers. Just look at what Trump and his congressional allies have promised. Public education will take a back seat to outsourcing and private firms who only care about ROI. The media will be demonized and the concept of a free independent press will be threatened. The courts will stand by and do nothing. We are entering a very dangerous time for our country. Citizens of all viewpoints need to get involved, educated on the issues and vote on the issues. Not personalities. Focus on what candidates intend to do if elected and determine what it means to you and your family. Many will be surprised and some will be profoundly disappointed. Watch what happens in the next six months.
I hope I am wrong but preparing for possibly bad things to come. And these are just some of the domestic issues facing us. As for foreign policy, pray for cooler heads and peace
"The voters did not decide in Nov 2106."
Yes they did, see below.
" It was the electoral college and that is the truth not an alternative fact."
Yes, it is the truth, and No, it's not an alternative fact- it's ignorance. Yours. Go do some reading up on the electoral college, and WHY it was created, then get back to us. Don't like it? Change it- IN CONGRESS. Good luck with that.
So Sycamore... if we can't stop immigrants from countries that did not specifically have one of their citizens commit a terrorist act on US soil, then that means we also can't limit gun owner's rights BEFORE they committed any sort of firearms crime, right?
Or do you want gun control laws in place "just in case." Uh-huh. Exactly. Remember what SD always says... "if it saves just one life..."
JIT, your idealism is touching. But the horse left the barn a long time ago. We live in the Divided States of America. There is no baseline.There are at least two. Or a thousand.
""extreme obstruction". Yup. And that's how our government is set up, ON PURPOSE."
Not really. It's set up to ALLOW for minority obstruction. It is not set up to be solely driven by extreme by obstruction as the Republicans have been since they stopped doing the nation's business from 2010 to 2017.
As to the rest, not sure what you are meaning. I pretty much said obstructing the SCOTUS confirmation is more about repayment for last quarter's Republican Party withdrawal over their abysmal Garland actions, or lack thereof. Both were qualified. Well qualified. I mean give a qualified guy his hearing. That's all we/you were/are asking back then/now (get it?).
BREAKING: President Trump has left the White House on Marine One on an unannounced trip, White House has not disclosed his destination.
— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) February 1, 2017
Media is going to be pissed...lol
thecoach He's going to Dover to be present for the return of the first service member killed on duty under his watch.
It's been on Fox News and channel 62 News for awhile now that he is going to Dover Del.
for the above reason.
"JIT, your idealism is touching. But the horse left the barn a long time ago. We live in the Divided States of America. There is no baseline.There are at least two. Or a thousand."
So just give up and bicker with no hope of ever solving things? Is fighting for the sake of fighting the only solution in today's world?
Yeah, I'm idealistic. But I'd rather be idealistic and understand the world around us than just accept that the red vs blue is the only way to interact. One way has a chance, the other is destined to failure.
Not fighting for the sake of fighting. I don't think most of the HL posters do that. It's fighting (arguing, debating) to defend principles we believe in. Both sides do that and it's nothing new in American (or World) history. Ultimately, the big wheel moves, sometimes as I'd like, other times not.
"Yeah, I'm idealistic. But I'd rather be idealistic and understand the world around us than just accept that the red vs blue is the only way to interact. One way has a chance, the other is destined to failure."
You know, I DO agree with this, BUT.... both the red and blue "sides" consider themselves as "idealistic"... neither willing to compromise. Idealism isn't all it's cracked up to be, it can be abused like anything else. (and the republicrats want it that way, as you know)
Human nature. There will NEVER be "peace on earth", due to human nature. Not pessimistic, REAListic.
I think the "8 years of blue, 8 years of red" IS the best we can do- it IS the compromise. I've said it many times, it's like a pendulum. And it's been that way virtually since the founding, when George Washington warned us against establishing political parties. It's almost as if it was over before it began. That being said, it's still one of the greatest countries in the world, and as broken as it is, one of the best (if not THE best) form of governments in the world.... because the founding fathers had the WORLD to learn from, and try to correct those mistakes.
Rebuild Infrastructure- how to pay for it?
Improve Education- how/methodology?
Improve Health Care for all- as above
We likely all agree with the three listed goals. But the devil is always in the details and therein lies the divisions. If common ground exists, and mutual compromises can be made to move forward on the attainment of the goals, the system works.
That's fine and all and nice of you to acknowledge, but will you also acknowledge that the bickering that can't be helped is really about who gets to control the gun that gets pointed at your neighbors head if he/she disagrees with you? Today the force of government is pointed at you yankeefan: not so nice is it?
I'd hope by now that you would have noticed that's my biggest issue, and that imo we all should try to temper our desires with the fact that all government action is backed by the threat of force. If you're ok with that then you really should just accept it and stop crying about Trump as he's just exercising fully that power you say you want.
Remember, true democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner.
Wow. Sorry, but you are really putting words in my mouth. There's no gun pointed at my head (yet), just policies I disagree with. You sound like we live in Russia. As I said before, Trump has two years. In 2018, Every house seat, 39 senate seats and 33 governors are up for election. Trump has to produce or he'll lose his majority. I'm expecting that to happen. In the meantime, in America I have the right to dissent loudly. And I couldn't disagree more with your glib and dystopic definition of democracy. Pretty clear where I stand, and you are per usual full of vague and obscure platitudes. Two baselines right there.
That's the expected response yankeefan. If you were to acknowledge that you get what you want through force you might actually feel a bit of remorse, assuming you are a compassionate human being as you've led us to believe. Or maybe not, likely, given the stubborn nature of being a typical Republicrat dead-set on using government force as a means to an end.
We have a perfect example right here in our backyard today. A bunch of folks did the squeaky wheel thing, loudly complaining that they didn't like the actions of one of their neighbors, how they are treating their personal property (animals). The squeaky wheel got the attention of the town council who then took action to pass an ordinance addressing the concerns. What form will those actions take? The usual method will be impose a fine. If the fine doesn't get paid then other threats will be made. Further non-compliance results in a visit from our wonderful police force. Resistance to the police visit will result in violence. We all know that's how it works. That is precisely what those complaining wanted - forced compliance.
All I'm saying is that everyone understands this yet conveniently acts in a diametrical fashion depending on whether or not they currently control the force of government, ignoring their own duplicity. Yeah when you get what you want and woe is me when you don't.
So tell me, is that dystopian or simply accepting of reality? I know the difference but it seems you'd rather bury your head in the sand and instead just act dismissively and call me names. Again, typical Republicrat response.
JR,
Of course, any nominee of a sitting President should be considered for confirmation. Too bad the Republican Senate refused to even consider President Obama's nomination. It was an abrogation of their duty. I don't remember you complaining about it then though. Who's the hypocrite JR? I think it's pretty clear.
Gadlfy,
You won't believe this (not that I care), but I actually think the SCOTUS should be BALANCED, and it would NOT have been had Obama been allowed to fill the seat. It would have leaned the court LEFT, which of course would have been fine with you. Trump's nominee fills a RIGHT seat, which keeps the court IN BALANCE, as it was before. (see my graphic above; the forum won't let me post it again.)
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/images/forum/2017/02/066621357f3c80804ea036254df71cbec056b2b1.jpg
No hypocrisy here- only PRAGMATISM.
JIT, so a group of concerned citizens decided to try to take action to protect what they considered to be abused animals. They didn't show up at the house with pitchforks and lanterns. They took their concerns to their local government and evidently succeeded in getting an ordinance passed that addressed their concerns. Conversely, I suppose, a group of pet owners who opposed the ordinance could have met with the same local government to state their position and I assume might have prevailed. Either way, government worked.
Now, in terms of enforcement, yes, that's likely how it works. Forced compliance? What's your alternative? Mob enforcement? If I was your neighbor and I "borrowed" your lawnmower, and then decided not to give it back, I'm pretty sure you'd be calling our (as you refer to them) "wonderful police force". Or maybe not, suppose you confronted me, and I refused to give it back. Then you beat me up and take back your property. In both cases, "forceful compliance". In a civilized society, the former approach seems rational. Without laws and enforcement we'd really be living out Lord of the Flies.
You remind me of the words in Macbeth...Act 5, scene 5:
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Rebecka Be most concerned about Breibart's campaign of disinformation. Islam is the boogeyman? Breitbart is a dangerous bullshi! trader for what purpose --> support of Zionism.
More "peace, love, and understanding" (violence and rioting) from the "tolerant" left:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-violence-prompts-uc-berkeley-cancel-milo-yiannopoulos-event-n715711
If you read the article, it says a group of 150 masked men interrupted what had been up to than a peaceful protest. Also note the guy being protested, Milo Yiannopoulos, is a Breitbart goon of the worst order who just restarted his scholarship for white dudes (which he'll wind up just stealing from like he did last time). More than likely, this situation was manufactured by the right to make the left look bad. Or bad apples on the left. We've got 'em, same as the right.
You know, like the college student in Canada who supported Trump and then shot and killed six people at a mosque? I don't see you posting that link, JR. Or how about the two mosques in Texas that have mysteriously burned down this month? Hmm.
Where are the links to those articles, JR?
Love the "tolerant" part, too. As if the left preaches tolerance at all; we don't. The left preaches acceptance and understanding. The right preaches tolerance, as in: I don't like you but I will tolerate you to get by. Until you can't tolerate any more... Then you elect Donald Trump, or leave the EU, and then see what happens.
Dear World:
We know our new President is a difficult "man" to deal with and we know some of our allies have already had the misfortune of seeing his rough side. Mexico, for example: Yes, we know he called many of your citizens "rapists" among other choice things, and is threatening to build the wall, crush your economy, and now send troops into your country if you can't control your "bad hombres". We know that our president hung up on the Prime Minister of Australia, and accused you, Germany, of currency manipulation (which of course we never do over here, wink wink) and suggested slapping some German imports with 35% tariffs. And that is just a sample. The rest of you, no doubt, will feel his firm little hand in time...well, maybe not Russia, but pretty much everyone else.
We, the majority of U.S. Citizens who did not vote for this man can only appologize for any inconvenience, economic loss, or war that may ensue in the coming years. Try to understand that the majority of us are still decent people and we are just as shocked by current events as you are! Hopefully in four years, this will only be a small, dark and distant memory for us all.
Regards,
The Rest of Us
Not approving the violence, but this guy is a train wreck. Having him speak in SF is analogous to inviting the Klan to speak in Newark. Protests are protected, violence is not, and there goes JR again, claiming the ever tolerant "right" are pure as the driven snow.
Yiannopoulos, a gay conservative and editor for the right-wing opinion site Breitbart News Network, is on a college tour across the country he’s dubbed the “Dangerous Faggot” talks. He is scheduled to speak Friday night at UC Davis and at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1.
His hallmarks are insults, barbs and taunts, typically aimed at women, people of color and anyone left of Donald Trump.
Thank you, Eperot.
(I think the world knows that the majority of us are still decent people. Decent, but powerless.)
Hey Sycamore... no doubt there are alot of protests that are happening because the protestors are being paid... just look at the democrat party and George Soros during the primaries, during Ferguson, chaos is good for THEIR "business".
YF: "Not approving the violence, but this guy is a train wreck. Having him speak in SF is analogous to inviting the Klan to speak in Newark. "
HAHA! No doubt!!!
So, back to more important matters, like SCOTUS. As for the "obstruction" that will no doubt be attempted (and likely cause the "nuclear option" to be used), I submit this into evidence as exhibit A:
Back to name calling yankeefan? So much for your elevated, intellectual honesty.
I'd like to first address your implication about my use of the phrase "wonderful police force". It was not said in jest or sarcastically. I do believe that we have a very good group of people who do NOT want to abuse their gift of authority over us. They are active in the community and serve a very useful purpose. OK, no ulterior motives there.
But you clearly are misunderstanding every single thing I write. For instance, go back to the thread about the supposedly abused animals and read *my* comments.
1) I offered a link outlining what I considered a rational, thought out response on the subject
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/772598#t773480
2) I suggested that instead of complaining that people should go to the town council and request an ordinance. In fact, I think I was the ONLY person who had offered that advice at that point in the thread.
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/772598#t774922
3) I then replied to another poster the I personally agree that if abusive treatment is happening it should be addressed.
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/772598#t774948
4) And then asked pampurr a question: "But Pampurr, what laws are being broken?", again the point being that without a law there's nothing that could be done.
5) I posted further clarification of my comments, directed toward LeLe at that point, reiterating that there was no basis in law addressing their concerns.
6) I finally backed out because I recognized the futility in discussing a subject with people who were working on 100% emotion. 100%.
(edit - lol I tried to link back to my posts referred to above but the forum software claimed that I used too many url's, so sorry but you'll either have to believe me or go look for yourself!)
Does that sound like someone who doesn't want laws? Or does that sound like someone who believed that laws are exactly what's needed to get rid of the emotion-laden rhetoric that passes for political discussion today? Not only do I want laws, but I want laws that mean something. And I don't want emotion driving the bus.
Most others say they want laws, but what they really want is for those laws to apply to others and not themselves. Can you not see that's exactly the case with President Trump? For years the Executive branch took on more and more authority, unquestioned by the Congress or the people because everyone thought they were "getting something".
Now that power is in the hands of someone who wants to use it to actually enforce laws (yes, legal enforcement even if you disagree with them) and all some can do is whine and cry and complain - the emotional part that's completely irrelevant in law making. Then, on top of that when I attempt to steer discussions back to reality, about the basis for all the stuff that happens in society, the team mentality kicks in and effectively closes off the minds of those who see only what they want to see.
Ok, shifting gears here take the two wolves and a sheep comment from above:
"Remember, true democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner."
Notice I said "true democracy". True democracy is exactly that: The majority imposing their will on the minority simply because they control the level of force in society. That is wrong on so many levels I can't fathom how you could agree that's a good thing. Any one who wants true democracy does not understand what it is they are desiring, and if they do understand it then they quite frankly deserve whatever happens when they are the minority under those conditions.
No, true democracy is evil, evil, evil. The followup discussion about that little proverb would include the question "Is there a different answer besides simple majority rule in which the wolves eat the sheep?". Of course there is, probably many answers. Let's say the wolves and sheep lived beside a river and if they worked together they could cast a net across - a wolf on each side of the river holding the net - while the sheep waded into the water and herded the fish into the net. The solution is NOT majority rule where the initiation of force is the deciding factor. The solution is one that benefits EVERYONE, where reasonable people understand that violence, even state sponsored violence, is not a solution and should only be used in extreme situations. True democracy is folly because there is not, and will never be, anything fair about majority, aka mob, rule. Tell me, is that such a crazy view to take? Obviously I don't think so.
Take a good long look at the politicized environment of the world we live in. Would you agree that collectively we now believe that the threat of force is the main solution to the worlds problems? If you disagree I'd ask you to look at the sheer number and size of the laws, rules and regulations that are on our government books today.
This one's for JIT...
"The torch has been passed to a new president.
All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—have been inherited by Donald Trump.
Whatever kind of president Trump chooses to be, he now has the power to completely alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.
He has this power because every successive occupant of the Oval Office has been allowed to expand the reach and power of the presidency through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements that can be activated by any sitting president.
Our warnings went largely unheeded.
First, we sounded the alarm over George W. Bush’s attempts to gut the Constitution, suspend habeas corpus, carry out warrantless surveillance on Americans, and generally undermine the Fourth Amendment, but the Republicans didn’t want to listen because Bush was a Republican.
Then we sounded the alarm over Barack Obama’s prosecution of whistleblowers, targeted drone killings, assassinations of American citizens, mass surveillance, and militarization of the police, but the Democrats didn’t want to listen because Obama was a Democrat and he talked a really good game."
http://rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/rule_by_brute_force_the_true_nature_of_government
Australia? How do you piss off Australia? There's no pissing off Australia in politics.
Meanwhile.......
Poor JIT. Must be nice to know all. "That's the expected response yankeefan." Yet with all that vision and knowledge, he feels the world against him, forcing him at the point of a gun to do things he might not do otherwise. He screams to change the world order saying we're all the same: Republicrats with " the stubborn nature of being a typical Republicrat dead-set on using government force as a means to an end." If we don't feel remorse over all that force, we are not compassionate human beings, according to the Jitster. And only Jit is "idealistic. But I'd (JIT) rather be idealistic and understand the world around us than just accept that the red vs blue is the only way to interact. One way has a chance, the other is destined to failure."
I am still trying to figure our red vs. blue if we are all Republicrats. I mean if we are all the same, then why are we debating? How can their be two sides if we are all Republicrats.
"All I'm saying is that everyone understands this yet conveniently acts in a diametrical fashion depending on whether or not they currently control the force of government, ignoring their own duplicity."
Oh sorry, I should have said duplicitous Republicrats acting in a diametrical fashion which is really tough if you are all the same........
In Jitworld, freezing dogs represent freedom from the yoke of government overshadowing our freedom of choice and liberty.
Here's the funny part. Jit seems to think it's reds gun on blue that's in season. I keep trying to tell the man that is just not necessarily so. Many of us blues will probably profit from Trump. We make enough that his "gun" will give us far less personal taxes, less capital gains so we can sell all that stuff we've been holding through Obama, will lower production costs of industry by removing environmental and regulatory costs providing greater returns from investments, will deregulate banking pulling the watchdogs off the money men providing even greater returns before the next crash. We know we will be safe enough no matter what he does. If it gets scary for some reason and we need to hide, we're the right age, race, social status. Just need to don a funny hat (get it, don a hat....) and say some rude things about minorities. Boom, we blend. So we might feel bad about many of the social issues, but let's be real ---- probably will not have direct effect on us beyond potentially ruining the economy for all. Not much of a force by gun Jit, not much at all.
And in two years we will take the bullets away.
Yikes. So much for brevity is the soul of wit...
Can you let me know, specifically, the form of government that resolves your myriad issues and concerns? I've asked you repeatedly in this thread and others, but you reply with more vague and circuitous platitudes. I think it has something to do with debt(bad) and laws,(bad) and politicization (bad) but I'm getting older and need the Cliff notes. Can you dumb it down for me?
I have certainly been having my fun poking the "blues" around here and their hypocrisy, after Trump's "unbelievable" win it was hard to be humble when the instant outrage, offense, crying, rioting, etc started... and because of that, I'm sure I'm being considered ultra-right wing (not that I care; I've simply been having to much fun LOL)
BUT SERIOUSLY PEOPLE...
JIT is the smartest guy in class. Most of you just haven't gotten there yet (and I am only just arriving, thanks in part to JIT's posts here over the years.)
If you aren't going to read the article I posted above, (the article is much longer than the blurb I pasted), you simply aren't TRULY interested in civil liberties and Americans at large. And that's the truth. It's not about right vs left. It never has been. Most of you just haven't figured that out yet, and government (the "republicrats") don't want you to... EVER.
God help us all.
Yikes is right....I mean "brevity is the soul of wit" seems a bit harsh. I think you should dial that one back. Never know who you might hurt :>)
"circuitous platitudes." now there's a couple of 50-cent words one didn't expect to see together....Are you saying Jittery went long or used big words.....
Meanwhile: "just look at the democrat party and George Soros during the primaries, during Ferguson, chaos is good for THEIR "business". Feckless, fact-less, spin alert on this one. Jr once again is posting from emotion without any significant support for this whopper. Or at least unproved allegation. Especially by racists. Or Putin lovers.
http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-bring-down-us/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/sorosferguson.asp
http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-bused-into-austin/
"Australia? How do you piss off Australia? There's no pissing off Australia in politics."
That's not even the issue. Trump cut the call short, not Australia. Reports are that Trump took exception to Australia's expectation that we would gladly take over a thousands of refugees from them without extreme vetting. Refugees that Australia refuses to take by the way.
So good for you Mr. President.
JR, I think if anyone was called the "smartest kid in class" by you, they'd be choked up with pride. Because clearly, you are right there as well....especially based on your recent essay:
"I have certainly been having my fun poking the "blues" around here and their hypocrisy, after Trump's "unbelievable" win it was hard to be humble when the instant outrage, offense, crying, rioting, etc started... and because of that, I'm sure I'm being considered ultra-right wing (not that I care; I've simply been having to much fun LOL)"
Wit and maturity are a tough combination to beat.
You really are an immature ass HH/mg/sd. Either that or you're starting to get that it is your worldview causing all the turmoil we see. Given your history I strongly suspect one over the other, but ultimately your further responses will provide the answer.
Hey Mark, do you still have that post-blocking script I gave you a while back? Can't seem to find it.
"JIT is the smartest guy in class. Most of you just haven't gotten there yet (and I am only just arriving, thanks in part to JIT's posts here over the years.)"
Thanks, that literally made me lol.
good news here - or maybe not: http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-started-fascism-forever-club-in-high-school/
JR thanks for the compliment but I have to disagree. Seeing the world as it is rather than how I'd like it to be is where I seem to differ from most. And agree or disagree, I don't really care, but at the very least acknowledging that the world's a big place and that none of us could possibly know all the answers is far more important than arguing about what color grass should be.
"Yikes. So much for brevity is the soul of wit..."
Is being witty the goal here? Damn, I never got the memo!
"Can you let me know, specifically, the form of government that resolves your myriad issues and concerns?"
We already have the best government structure on the planet imo. A Constitutional Republic. At least on paper anyway. Any chance we can get back there?
"I think it has something to do with debt(bad) and laws,(bad) and politicization (bad) but I'm getting older and need the Cliff notes. Can you dumb it down for me?"
Why? You don't want to hear it, only to ridicule it, and then make some witty comment about how I'm wrong, feeding your ego and telling yourself that you've got everything figured out. I've already repeated myself so often that I can practically guarantee the long time regulars here would know what I'm going to write even before I post lol
"Hey Mark, do you still have that post-blocking script I gave you a while back? Can't seem to find it.
You betcha...
"JR thanks for the compliment but I have to disagree. Seeing the world as it is rather than how I'd like it to be is where I seem to differ from most."
Which makes you the smartest person in THIS class (of HL).
"acknowledging that the world's a big place and that none of us could possibly know all the answers is far more important than arguing about what color grass should be."
Couldn't agree more. I fully admit not having all the answers. As for grass color, PURPLE would be good :)
Did you check out my link above? Sounds an awful lot like what you've been preaching for a long time now....
"Is being witty the goal here? Damn, I never got the memo!" Now we know the problem. Please, can someone send Jitorerlant the memo. Please. Now....
"You really are an immature ass HH/mg/sd." Uh oh. I think the wheels are falling off the comedy carriage. Somebody working on being TC. Pot n kettle, together again.
"Either that or you're starting to get that it is your worldview causing all the turmoil we see." Oh jitywankenobi, please tell us --- what is my worldview?
"Given your history I strongly suspect one over the other, but ultimately your further responses will provide the answer." Ach, nee. Foreshadowing? Genau.
Your use of judgmental name calling to demean others is beneath the standards of this community. Saying it's tit for tat is not an excuse. At least you stopped calling my mother names.
Hey Mark, do you still have that post-blocking script I gave you a while back? Can't seem to find it.
Thanks Mark, I remember now. I need to install Greasemonkey again.
JR, from a trends view none of that surprises me in the least.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/house-vote-guns-mental-illnesses/index.html
This says it all. The NRA is more important than kids who were killed at Sandy Hook by a mentally ill gum holder.
This is just too much and proves that to act on this, Trump must be mentally unstable as well.
Just awful.
Do you do your own taxes? No? You must be mentally ill.
That's basically what the definition was that's being overturned. It banned SS recipients that needed assistance managing their finances. Hardly a good indicator of mental illness
Here's a previous article about when it was enacted...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
...and a key paragraph:
"But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded."
See that? *Mental health experts* called the idea wrongheaded...
This has less than nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
Don't try and muddy the water with facts Mark. Guns are bad and anything that restricts gun owners rights is good, no matter how it is achieved or what price it comes at. Just think of the children!
Really though, to see the anti-gunners go flying off the wall you've got to compare Adam Lanza to Kermit Gosnell and see how many of those same people are ready to ban women's clinics because it could save "just one child"... I've got no issue with people who stand on principal, but no respect for those who just repeat the current party line without even realizing what side of an issue they are even on.
brendan "and see how many of those same people are ready to ban women's clinics because it could save "just one child"...
I've been saying similar for YEARS.
"JIT is the smartest guy in the class." Completely agree.
Even when we did not agree, JIT was able to articulate his point of view without being debasing like some posters... especially one poster in particular.
positive Keep telling yourselves that aborting a few cells with no consciousness, no pain receptors, no motor or verbal skills, no heartbeat, no "life," is the same as an eight-year-old with memories and a life and a family and friends and a hope for a future--you know, all the things that really come with being alive--imagine that child, that person, so full of life and promise, being killed by a shot in the chest or head.
I'm not even against the Second Amendment. But I'm for responsible gun ownership. The law being overturned didn't ban people from buying guns because they were on Social Security; it required background checks for those people because, guess what, it's a little odd to collect SS and spend the little money you have on an expensive firearm. But heck, if you're mentally sound and just on hard times, you'll pass the background check. Just probably reconsider how you spend your money.
And don't lump in Kermit Gosnell to make your case. That wasn't abortion. It was murder, pure and simple.
"it's a little odd to collect SS and spend the little money you have on an expensive firearm"
What if it's a cheap firearm?
(Not that spending had *anything* to do with the law, just asking...)
Are we tying the exercise of rights to financial status now? I propose if you can't secure a loan then you can't vote.
Love how you completely ignored my argument. The law is only about background checks. You're telling me 100% of people collecting disability are going to be mentally stable enough to responsibly own a firearm?
My uncle collected disability because he had a knee replacement. Nothing mental about it.
So your uncle would pass a background check. I don't see the problem. Again: do you believe 100% of people collecting disability are mentally stable enough to responsibly own a firearm?
Because they are *adding* prohibitions to the list based *nothing* on them being adjudicated mentally ill or dangerous to themselves or others, so that they would no longer pass a background check.
Even the ACLU (which hates the 2nd Amendment) objected to this law.
Do you believe 100% *aren't* to be trusted with firearms, because that's the blanket they cast. This is why there is a thing called due process (applied to the individual in question) *before* their rights are removed.
Plus, any laws infringing on an enumerated right should be subject to "strict" judicial scrutiny, meaning the government has to prove there is a dire need to enact the law (not maybe's or we thinks). Where's the data showing a rash of shootings by SS recipients that would fall into their proposed prohibited category?
Where's the data showing a rash of terrorist attacks by the seven Muslim-majority countries on the banned travel list?
Oh, wait... (it doesn't fit the narrative)
Listen, if the idea is that certain people who need assistance managing their SS money are banned outright from gun ownership, I don't agree. Being bad with money doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun (though I would argue you should save or invest your money elsewhere, but that's just my opinion.) But if the idea is that, because they collect SS payments, that they should undergo more stringent testing to ensure their mental competence, then I am against overturning this law. It just makes sense to be more rigid about giving possibly unstable people (which some SS recipients are, like it or not) access to firearms.
The idea was that people receiving assistance would be banned from gun ownership so thank you for agreeing.
Sycamore,
I know it won't change your mind, because your mind is totally closed and already has all the answers, but...
www.180movie.com
Also, you must be new here. Because most of us (yes, even those who have vehemently disagreed with one another) have admitted learning things from the other side, and broadening our horizons of thought, thanks to debate on this forum. Even SD and I have had reasonable discourse (rare, but it has happened). Perhaps you are very young, IDK, but you will hopefully grow wiser with time. Because you have a very long way to go from your "I already know the CORRECT opinion to have on EVERYTHING" mindset. But you have to first admit that.... you DON'T know everything, and you NEVER will.
By the way, I am interested to know... did you read the article I posted in the link above? Perhaps you aren't ready for the truth contained in that article- for it blames both parties, the voters, the justices, EVERYONE for the mess we are in..... but it THAT doesn't fit YOUR narrative.
Good luck. It's going to be a very long 4-8 years for you.
"Where's the data showing a rash of terrorist attacks by the seven Muslim-majority countries on the banned travel list?"
The difference here is that immigrating to the US is not a Constitutional right. It is a privilege that our country affords those from other areas of the world.
Sometimes that privilege is permissive and other times it's restrictive, but it's entirely within the powers of the federal government to choose which way it will be.
So the Trump administration is allowed to create or ignore data when it's convenient for them because it doesn't involve US citizens?
"So the Trump administration is allowed to create or ignore data when it's convenient for them because it doesn't involve US citizens?"
Sigh. Just like Clinton, Bush, and Obama before him- yes.
Legally, yes. Unless already on US soil.
Not just because they are outside the US, but because our immigration policy has no impact on their existing rights.
That's why I believe the only ones affected by a judicial intervention were the ones stuck in airports after arriving on flights that were in process when the order was signed. They were denied due process within our borders. Others can choose not to get on the plane at the origin.
do you guys know that reading this thread is pretty amusing sometimes and it's tragic at other times ?
BrotherDog Disability is getting abused, not by everyone but it is. If everyone who doesn't plan for their retirement uses disability as a crutch then this country will be full of them...
What information did Obama create to justify his immigration limits? Waiting on you guys to throw the Bowling Green Massacre at me. Explain that one, btw.
JR, you can continue trying to belittle me because you can't really defend your positions. It doesn't change the fact that you have danced around every response I've made to you. I present facts, you present bullying. I don't think I'm right about "everything," but I do know what I think is wrong. So I stand against that. And I'm sorry if much of what I find wrong, are tenets of your personal philosophy. Look further to my conversation with Mark; I admitted I was wrong about the SS/gun laws issue (after reading up more about it, mind you).
it's easy, she mis-spoke and has issued a correction. have you never made a mistake? it's been corrected by her post interview. only true hater would run with this at this point and be completely unforgiving. like when crazy uncle joe said FDR announced the start of the depression in 1928 on TV. unlce joe was given a complete pass by the ultra-blue entrenched libs. just like they gave BHO a complete pass when he said there were 57 states. public figures make mistakes, they mis-speak, it happens, it's been corrected, it's past time for some forgiveness, she just mis-spoke. that's all there is to it.
"Mark; I admitted I was wrong about the SS/gun laws issue (after reading up more about it, mind you)."
That's why I said "Thanks".
It also brings to light the extremely shoddy "journalism" from the CNN article (and especially the headline) posted above - which they have since softened to include at least some attempt at facts.
BrotherDog, give me a break. She mis-spoke? She created a fake terrorist attack! What exactly was she confusing it with?
It's simple. She's creating confusion. Fomenting hatred. You think some of the people who watched that bothered to do any research afterwards? I'm sure we now have Americans that believe Iraqis carried out a terror attack in Kentucky.
Sycamore,
I'm starting to think you're Gadfly.... who we haven't seen much of around her lately....
Mistergoogle=StrangerDanger..... Sycamore=Gadfly??? Hmm???
(no offense meant, Gadfly, if I am incorrect)
"SHE's creating confusion"?????
How about a president - nay, an ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION- who would not utter the words "islamic terrorism". Talk about creating confusion, and a false narrative...
she simply miss-spoke, that's all there is to it, sorry to burst your hate bubble and she corected the record herself, she has come clean about this, why continue the hate towards her for a simple error? do you think BHO really thinks there are 57 states like he said? or do you believe VP Biden really thinks FDR announced on TV in 1928 the start of the depression? (no one had tv yet and he wasnt even president yet) We all gave uncle joe a pass on that, actually it was kinda funny to me, just like no one held BHO to task for a simple error in speaking. these folks talk a lot, they talk all the time and a lot of it is in front of a camera, frankly i'm surprised it doesn't happen more often with these very public figures to be honest.
but feel free to keep proving my points for me, let the casting of stones continue till you vent all your hate.. like they did at NYU yesterday and at Berkley the day before. nothing but hate. sad really. really sad to see this in all of you who continue to nit-pick your way to justify the continued stream of hatred (which is most likely taking years off of life, burning up your spirit and soul with this much anger)
Just like when Hilary and Obama mis-spoke (Lie) about the Bengazi attack being blamed on a tape.
"She mis-spoke." ---BD
LMAO --- she created a fake massacre!!!
It was a blatant lie. She even said people don't know about it because "it didn't get covered."
LOL at her blatant lie and all the lies Trumputin vomits out.
IMO Trump's extreme vetting EO will probably pass judicial scrutiny.
To me, the issue is more of one of process and Trump's proven penchant for ready, fire, aim implementations creating confusion and potential havoc across the world.
There is no extreme vetting; this EO was to build a 120-day window for team Trump to figure out what that means. The "window" stranded a number of valid travelers, proper green card and visa holders, in the process of travel. I don't think anyone detained was either held or turned away --- it was fruitless. A number of judges have overturned parts of Trump's EO weakening it. Chances are Trump will jump-shift to the final EVetting process and not attack the courts.
First, the EO blocks Syrian refugee access to the US for 120-days. This is what upset Australia given we have a deal with them to accept refugees Australia is holding on our behalf. That trickles down to the current world view that Trump will not feel he has to honor any obligations in place.....for anything. It also blocked the seven majority Muslim countries from immigration for the same period.
This also included any green-card holders currently travelling overseas and thus the in-transit detainee issue. Further ALL green-card holders will have to report to the US Consul before they are allowed to leave America. That's weird.
Highlighting the administration's confusion was Rance's view "“We didn’t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green-card holders moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” he said at one point but later said "Well, of course it does (affect green-card holders). If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to further screening."
The countries selected were on the list for the current Obama-version of EVetting. This was a process thing that allowed Trump technically to issue the EO without creating new law. But it certainly didn't answer the question about the other countries that should have been in play.
So that is that and it's all probably relatively legal (beyond what the judges have squashed). The real question is what is EVetting and what will it look like after 120-days.
Chances are the vetting in place is sufficient, EVetting will add little to the process, and the entire thing is a PR stunt with, given the attacks from these countries, is a low-risk PR win for Trump who will claim EVetting works. Of course, he could claim that today before EVetting is in place.
Here's the best part: if Trump was attempting to get a green-card today, he would be denied based on his own EVetting. I'll let you read the EO and it's affect from the totally fake CNN news piece.... but ask yourself ----- if asking about this crap gonna deter any terrorist from boarding the plane to come to America? It's a joke. Oh yeah, before you go off ---- it's an opinion piece that concludes:
"You get the idea. Trump wouldn't come close to passing his own ideological vetting test. In fact, I'd predict more Americans would prefer to accept the refugees and deport Trump."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/opinions/keep-refugees-deport-trump-obeidallah-opinion/
Sycamore,
You know, l've spent more than my fair share of time on this forum and come to one immutable conclusion: arguing politics is a complete waste of time. People are so deeply entrenched into their beliefs including you and me and we're all attempting to make others understand and accept our opinions as the right ones. Others here will protest against that idea, saying that maybe they changed their mind on some issue through exchanges here or that they are somehow above the fray...like suggesting they are "independant" and yet following in lockstep with every republican talking point. It's all pretty useless. Lots of characters typed, no changed minds. And don't let anyone fool you...we aren't here for the exchange of ideas...people argue for the sake of trying to get others to accept "their" view as correct. Otherwise, there would be no need to argue.
Maybe you enjoy debate. In that case, by all means carry on. Personally l find it wears me down and makes me even more cynical about my fellow humans...if that were possible.
I am an unabashed liberal. I wear it with pride because even though conservatives have largely succeeded at making "liberal" a dirty word, l understand that the root meaning of liberal is "forward thinking", and l don't know about you but l have no problem with that. The thing that has bothered me most over the years is the assumption by many that liberalism is a young person's disease. I recall customers of mine telling me back before l was a homeowner "you'lll start voting republican as soon as you buy a house" which aside from being about the most stupid thing l had ever heard, hit me most because l don't vote with only my bank ballance in mind. Or take JR's oft stated assertion that because you don't see things his way, you must be very young and hopefully with luck you'll one day grow wiser and finally accept his world view as the correct one. Until that day however, you can only be young and incorrect.
In summation l have come to the conclusion that it's time to pull the plug. People are going to believe in whatever they believe come hell or high water and nothing any of us say will affect the other. I've tried to be a voice of reason on more occasions than l can count, and maybe contribute something thoughtful to the discussion. But l'm tired. And l could be doing so many more important things in life! Like walking my dogs, which l think l'll go do now. At least that doesn't give me a headache.
So Sycamore, keep going if you like. Fight the good fight, don't let people tell you that you are young or unwise or naive without calling them out for it, and remember that it's ok to be a little left-of-center. Just don't think in the end your discussion will change any minds.
Adieu!
Oh E-man.... Sorry to see you go. IMO, I see change from all sides albeit small things, small acceptances. Rare, but happens all the time in very small dosages.
At HL, I oft learn things that perhaps don't change my opinion but certainly open my eyes. Today, I learned Biden really went off the gaffe-free wagon. While used to his gaffes, this one was a bit over the top in revisionist history.
Most of us wouldn't be so strident in person. As Darrin might say; in person we would probably get along just fine. That's because no matter what some say, we all strive to be PC whenever possible. At HL though, we see behind the curtain as to what people really feel when that PC mask is removed. Frankly, I was amazed at the throwbacks that exist in my town --- from either side of the aisle and included that libertarian third rail. Myself included.
I have lived through a few pendulum swings by this time in my life Johnson to Nixon, Carter to Reagan, Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, and Bush to Obama. IMO, the "tussle" has been far worse before. Perhaps one difference in this go round is Trump himself. His character, his history (or lack thereof due to secrecy), his mercurial decision process, all things creating our new level of an unpredictable world.
The thing that is disturbing is Trump's ability to toss shat at the wall just to see if it sticks. Where does he get off telling off-color jokes to Mexico's President. Where does he get off hanging up on Australia because they said we should honor our commitment. He hasn't rolled one thing out that he hasn't rolled back all or a portion of what he just said. That's different from what I have seen in the past. Sure, other administrations have acted prematurely but generally not as a modus operandi.
So sure, I enjoy the tussle. More for what is learned, not for some kind of right/wrong contest. And yeah, it's gonna get more heated, buckle up. Old Chinese curse (SD modified): may you be born in unpredictable times.
BD, love the pic in your post!
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/778665#t779701
Eperot, I agree with you about changing minds-it rarely happens without an external stimulus, unfortunately in the form of some type of pain. But if there's one thing I've learned over the years it's to not let politics consume you emotionally. There's no point in expending that kind of energy because you'll always wind up right back where you started.
BD's pic above is one of the better visuals I've seen demonstrating the thought.
Sure, I can give Conway the Mulligan on the mis-speak but face it, she's more like regurgitating fake news given the level of detail and description. I mean when you use the M-word, probably good to have at least one casualty. At least a good boo-boo.
To me the point is, even if true, it’s a red herring. These guys were from Iraq, not one of the seven countries so Trump EO no cover. Second, look at the real news. The guys were stopped, vetting was made more extreme by Obama, and the system self-corrected based on the new information gathered before harm done.
That’s different than claiming the system is broken and we have to invoke “EVetting,” whatever that is. If it is anything at all.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/bowling-green-massacre-plot-iraqi-refugees-kellyanne-conway-trump-video-waad-ramadan-alwan-terrorists-terrorism-kentucky-al-qaeda-iraq-mohanad-shareef-hammadi/
Article about how the Yemen raid was handled, politically. It doesn't blame anyone (except maybe the clumsiness of bureaucracy) , just makes alot of good points about the truth of geopolitical military operations, and how they are handled by DC. Written by someone in the Defense Dept for Obama's last 2 years.
"This raid, according to The New York Times, was approved by and recommended to the president by his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the recommendation to have gone forward to the president, the senior leadership of the Department of Defense would have signed off on this operation. And for that to have happened, special operations and regional U.S. commanders would have had to have blessed the planning that went into the operation itself.
The left cannot on the one hand claim Donald Trump is ignorant of military and security affairs, and then on the other hand expect him to second-guess the professional recommendations of his uniformed and civilian military leadership."
...and for you lefties who won't bother to read it because it says "don't blame Trump", he has equally bad things to say over the way the Republican party handled Benghazi. It's very much a NO-partisan article... except maybe partisan to the MILITARY (no political party)
More:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/dont-blame-trump-for-the-failed-raid-in-yemen/515496/
What an absolute nightmare... even if trump was wrong with travel ban, now the US is opening the door for anyone and everyone to get in fast, before the ban is reinstated. Perfect time for the so called Trojan horse. Absolute libtards.
Forcefed4door Here is a really funny appeal from Germany to Trump to make Germany second, I highly recommend watching the first five minutes!
http://www.dw.com/en/europe-tussles-for-second-knowing-its-america-first/a-37407264
Day 15 of Trump MAGA: Hey, this isn't working like TrumpCo. I mean workers are questioning the boss. That's just not right. I got leaks. I got Constitutionally wrong-headed judges (probably Mexican), I got bungled military operations by people who said it was a go. Obama incompetents and traitors everywhere. Darned Constitution. Stupid checks and balances. Opposition party fourth estate.
Did I learn anything about governing?
Naaaaaaah.
Thank goodness my supporters believe "even if trump was wrong with travel ban, now the US is opening the door for anyone and everyone to get in fast, before the ban is reinstated" like that door hasn't been open for 15 years or more.....Yeah, believers still good. It's those dis-unifiers fighting Trumpism unification that's the problem. So, first -- fix the leaks. Wonder if some treason charges will work? And then those non-believers, hmmmm, wonder if some treason charges will work....... Meanwhile, kick those reporters across the street and start rescinding tickets for certain fake news channels. You know, MSM.
Meanwhile: "EEEEEEEEEEEEE O" "EEEEEEEEEEEEE O" Daylight come and me wanna go EO.
Back to the banana boat !!!
MB, the assumption you're making is that someone must be "right". I've mentioned before that imo that's a misnomer because what we believe to be true is often more about our perspectived than anything. Some examples:
You on the ground and me on a plane. Is it a cloudy day or is the sun shining? Difference in locational perspectives.
Abortion: Removal of unwanted clumps of cells or removal of a soon-to-be human life? Difference in time perspectives.
Taxation: A means to provide a source of funding for "societal needs" or a forceful taking of property by the state? Difference in ownership perspective.
The ACA: A program to make healthcare accessible for everyone or a legal means to force a larger pool of folks to insure for the insurance industry? Difference in expectations stemming from a law.
This type of analysis works for every single debatable subject. The "right" answer is usually the one that will serve to benefit you the most, either in a physical way (getting something like money or a service) or an emotional way (wanting to impose your morality on others, like feeling that leaving dogs outside is always harmful or that killing is always wrong).
In the examples above would you agree that ones perspective makes a difference in how they view the world? IMO Perspective is everything.
Does that help MB?
If what you are alluding to is that their are potentially many sides to an issues; perhaps as many differences as snowflakes, then I agree.
If you are saying they're are two sides to every issue, then you are just plain wrong.
And don't want to blow smoke up your dress, yet guess what? Uh oh, sometimes more than one answer might be correct. Or incorrect. Or kind of correct.
To follow up, then, are workable solutions for society derived from ignoring other perspectives in the world or are they derived from striving to understand the views of others?
A question for everyone: Looking at the current, extremely divided, political atmosphere are we collectively *choosing* to be closed-minded or open-minded in our interactions with each other?
Personally I see the former much more than the latter.
Jobs!!
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-creates-ten-million-jobs-for-fact-checkers
Is that because your house is full of mirrors :>)
Many a President has learned some harsh lessons quickly upon taking office. Hopefully Trump has learned some crucial distinctions between private and public office. Avoidance of judicial slap-downs is why President’s vet their own EO proposals across a fleet of Constitutional lawyers and different Department heads. Also, helps avoid nasty start-up implementation failures like bad web sites, web site information censorship, and a surprise stranding of people in airports across the globe. Leaks occur when transparency is least desired; that’s why President’s rarely lose their composure in meetings and public settings. For a President, almost everything is public.
Mr. President, please learn how to use your human resources close at hand to increase the wisdom of your choices. We are the world's beacon, we should not look like a bunch of bumbling idiots over plain ole blocking and tackling issues.
Trump is also responsible for his first military death in a battle of his choice. Yes, Jr, I read your piece which seems OK but as JIT said, probably another perspective from another location or time. Like ---- the military always provides a risk assessment. Either this one was too low provoking Trump to vote yes. Or it was too high that a yes vote was ill conceived. In any case, and no matter how you cut it, Trump owns it and our best hope is that he learns the prudence that comes with his responsibility of choice over life and death.
SD "sometimes more than one answer might be correct. Or incorrect. Or kind of correct."
On that we agree. Emphasis on "sometimes."
So it's obvious the world can be viewed differently depending on perspective-glad you can comprehend that.
Why then do you yankeefan, and SD in particular, insist on interacting in a demeaning, dismissive and arrogant fashion with others? Wouldn't the obvious conclusion then be that you are entirely dismissive of other views due to a fallacy that your own views are always "right", and you are thus part of the problem when it comes to encouraging and dividing our society? Iow you are so confident that your perspectives are "right" (even though you just said it's obvious that's not true) that you feel the need to belittle and demean the views of others?
Maybe use one of those million mirrors SD just offered up?
"On that we agree. Emphasis on "sometimes."
One answer is always correct: "it depends."
"Why then do you yankeefan, and SD in particular, insist on interacting in a demeaning, dismissive and arrogant fashion with others?" What'sa a matter, looking for a little tender PC, snowflake..... :>)
When it comes to name calling, you take the cake my friend.
You know, if you have a problem with something I write, just say it. Point it out. Be specific. I will probably stop, correct, and modify going forward. But quit with the general innuendo that is probably brought on by your own feelings of inadequacy.
Of course, that's about as ridiculous as you, based on your "feelings," concluding we "are entirely dismissive of other views due to a fallacy that your own views are always "right"" which leads you to believe we "are thus part of the problem when it comes to encouraging and dividing our society?"
Matter of fact, we are so "Iow you are so confident that your perspectives are "right" (even though you just said it's obvious that's not true) that you feel the need to belittle and demean the views of others?"
I apologize in advance if your own words demean you (time for that sixth sense of humor to kick in Jitserious.
Sorry but all these illegal aliens and the regions that they come from are turning us into a third world country. All the while lib college kids and their parents play fiddle whilst Rome burns .... one day they will show up in your gated communities .... We will all be sorry together at the end. Then and only then i want Mr. G/ strangerdanger to say who she is.
JIT: " Wouldn't the obvious conclusion then be that you are entirely dismissive of other views due to a fallacy that your own views are always "right", and you are thus part of the problem when it comes to encouraging and dividing our society?"
You (from my perspective) have described your persona perfectly.
I do try not to dismiss any viewpoint prima facie. My viewpoint leans left, but not always...for instance, I have no problem with the Andrew Dice Trump's Supreme Court pick. But I certainly have a problem with Congress stonewalling even a hearing for Garland, for almost a year. Similarly, Believe it or not, I read your posts and try to get a sense of your perspective. But I always have had a slight issue with those I perceive to be preachy, yes, arrogant, lofty pontificators. My BS detector goes off, and I try to puncture the balloon. Even snowflakes have limits.
So...because you accuse me of demeaning the views of others (an extremely rare occurrence here on HL), I must take exception... if I do in fact demean, it's aimed at the style and attitude, not the view. Every well thought out position is worthy of consideration and debate.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Bowling Green to tend to the wounded.
4catmom, how did the travel ban violate someone's constitutional rights? I keep seeing in various news stories, people saying the ban is unconstitutional without ever explaining why. Which amendment? Please educate me, I'm honestly trying to understand the other point of view and if there's a valid reason why this is unconstitutional that's a serious issue that needs to be addressed and I'd be happy to jump aboard. I didn't think it was because if someone is not a U.S. citizen they aren't protected by our constitution and that's who we're talking about right? non-U.S. citizens?
Thanks
Ha! Looks like she really doesn't need my help.
President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, is best known in the education policy world as a school choice advocate. But on the national political stage, she and her husband, Dick DeVos Jr., the son of the founder of Amway, are perhaps best known as big-time donors to Republican candidates and groups.
In the 2016 election year, for example, the two gave $2.7 million to Republican candidates and nothing to Democrats, as we reported earlier. But their campaign-donation record goes back much further. And it includes contributions to several senators who may vote on Betsy DeVos' confirmation in the Senate education committee and subsequently on the Senate floor—more on that below. We haven't seen any campaign finance records, however, showing they donated to Trump's presidential campaign.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2016/12/campaign_contributions_betsy_devos_education_secretary.html
yankeefan, I decided to reread our interactions above and I'll concede that my tone was pretty harsh initially towards "Republicrats". Even though not directed toward you or anyone else in particular, it seems you took offense and responded negatively with personal attacks. Ok, I'll accept your claim that it's rare behavior for you and were triggered by my Republicrat comments, so I'll apologize for lumping you in with SD today (who does that as part of his normal posting style).
I do take offense to one thing though, and that's objection to my tendency to try and boil topics down to their constituent components. When I've done that you've said that I'm stating the "obvious" (implied eye rolls included lol), however how obvious could those comments be if the concepts I'm referring to are completely ignored by those posting in the discussion?
Anyway, good day to you in Bowling Green. Hope the weather is nice there today ;-)
Scottso,
Here you go- bear in mind that these are arguments...the other side will argue that there are no constitutional violations. And Andrew Dice Trump will ignore the arguments on either side and simply vilify the judge. Not the first time he's done that...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html
JIT, détente accepted. (I think that's the tone of your post?)
We can, in a civil manner, agree where we agree, and disagree where you are wrong. :) That's a joke.
I'd also like to defend SD, not that I think he needs help. I find his posts to be well thought out, and I enjoy them.
Cheers!
You read my correctly yankeefan. Regardless of how I come off sometimes I'm not really interested in troublemaking, just pushing forth a rather uncommon viewpoint. White flag is out lol.
As far at the other part of your post, we'll have to continue to disagree. I usually don't have too much to say about specific content of his posts (other than there's often way too much lol) but rather the style and dismissive tone and delivery. But I suppose the same has been said about my posts. C'est le vie.
Thanks yankeefan. So it seems the 14th (primarily) and 5th amendments are the ones at play. Due to various court rulings, basically anyone that makes it to U.S. soil has protection under the Constitution....
This puts the travel ban debate (and the Mexican border wall) in a new light for me and what the different sides are essentially fighting for...getting non-U.S. citizens to U.S. soil or keeping them off U.S. soil. Seems the crux of 'constitutional coverage' is determined by where foreigners are physically standing.
So a Syrian in Syria has no constitutional rights, but as soon as they get here they do?
Commenting is no longer available.