President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Commando]

Those Christians don't need an extra level of protection as refugees-- if they can make it to the U.S., that's a slam-dunk asylum case. It's completely unfair that we would exclude those fleeing terror and needlessly make an exception for the Christians.

[Blueintheface]

I look forward to the day when he is removed from office and the Republicans unilaterally claim they never truly supported him. That will be fun to watch (if we haven't devolved into complete chaos by then). Fortunately, the wheels are in motion for this to happen, hopefully within the first year . I do however, fear the apathy in this country won't see it to its conclusion (this despite nationwide protests and record low approval ratings).

[8BR]

Our form of government survives and thrives because of the division and counter-balancing of powers among the three branches. To threaten the power of the judiciary by attacking undermines our fundamental constitution as a nation. In this respect, Trump and Bannon are very harmful to our country.

Here is a very good piece identifying some of the issues from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38881119

Our economic and political systems thrive because of the perception of stability and consistency. When the creditably of the system overall is cast in doubt, I'm afraid people may find the stability of markets and economies to be more fragile than anticipated.

[8BR]

No, Trump is as bad or worse than even many of his detractors feared. I listened to the excerpt from his O'Reilly interview at lunch where he minimized the difference between the US and Putin. Shocking for its inaccuracy but also for the lack of clear thinking behind it. He is in a position to affect events spanning the globe just by his comment and he is treating it like he is a used car salesman: Let's make a deal! Will he bargain? Then he's a good guy! Hey, we are ALL killers.

I don’t grok where he is going with Russia. What is the point in practical terms? To use the 'let's make a deal' frame, why give them all the opening room? It makes no sense; they have no leverage on us. What do they have we can't find in three or four other allies first - allies with a track record of support. Is it some play to marginalize China? Even if that is the case, it's ham-fisted at best.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I look forward to the day when he is removed from office and the Republicans unilaterally claim they never truly supported him. That will be fun to watch (if we haven't devolved into complete chaos by then). Fortunately, the wheels are in motion for this to happen, hopefully within the first year . I do however, fear the apathy in this country won't see it to its conclusion (this despite nationwide protests and record low approval ratings).

Reminded me of this.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Topper]

Trump re-Reaganizing the Republican Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.798226e35397

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Embedded Tweet

Also, live stream of tomorrow's action! It's too bad I'll have my head stuck in a river all day.

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Commando]

Man those poor Trump DOJ sycophants. It's going to be such a humiliating ass-kicking trying to defend that stupid EO.

[creekster]

Man those poor Trump DOJ sycophants. It's going to be such a humiliating ass-kicking trying to defend that stupid EO.

Yes? I haven't read the positions in court. Why is the EO unconstitutional? What standing do the states have for this argument? In a nutshell.

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

Not surprising. But those are "former" officials. Surely the WA Attorney General isn't that sloppy.

[Walter Sobchak]

Oh no! Trump got to you to! First Uncle Ted, and now you. Sad.

Wrong. I got to President Trump. I've been anti-war/anti-empire/anti-"liberation" since Bosnia. President Trump, like SU, will be get something right from time to time.

No, Trump is as bad or worse than even many of his detractors feared. I listened to the excerpt from his O'Reilly interview at lunch where he minimized the difference between the US and Putin. Shocking for its inaccuracy but also for the lack of clear thinking behind it. He is in a position to affect events spanning the globe just by his comment and he is treating it like he is a used car salesman: Let's make a deal! Will he bargain? Then he's a good guy! Hey, we are ALL killers.

#truthbomb

[Walter Sobchak]

For me, the blanket ban is based on nothing. No findings of a security lapse, no threat, no precedent of danger, nothing. Therefore, emergency powers don't apply here. He did it cause Trump Says So. And based on his follow-up tweets, that is a big problem. He is online undermining the authority and legitimacy of the Judiciary Branch, referring to the Judge who issued the injunction in Washington state as "the so-called-judge" What a stupid POS.

There are a few simple ways to improve our security, reduce the porousness of the border, and document people who are already here-- none of those things will happen the Trump Way.

Banning refugees from countries the U.S. has had a hand in destroying (Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, et al) is wrong. The least we can do if give them a couch to crash on after blowing up their homes.

[Commando]

Yes? I haven't read the positions in court. Why is the EO unconstitutional? What standing do the states have for this argument? In a nutshell.

I haven't read any of the arguments, but I believe the Washington judge cited U.S. v Texas. That seems a good enough place to start.

[myboynoah]

Yes? I haven't read the positions in court. Why is the EO unconstitutional? What standing do the states have for this argument? In a nutshell.

I haven't read any of the arguments, but I believe the Washington judge cited U.S. v Texas. That seems a good enough place to start.

Interesting discussion.

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

I agree with Rivkin. Can't have the judiciary ruling on foreign policy. That opens a whole can of worms. Who knows if it will be effective or not (I doubt it will be), but that's not the issue. I don't like this order, but it seems to me the president is empowered to issue it and act on it.

[imanihonjin]

FDR did far more than "rip" on the judiciary. What he proposed was the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary in our history. Trump would probably love to have what FDR proposed. Thankfully, FDR failed.

I don't think he failed at all. He got what he wanted because the Supreme Court ended up caving and quit ruling against his new deal policies. His whole plan was to expand the number of justices on the court so that he could push his agenda through, but he ended up getting what he wanted by threatening to expand. The relationship between the government and the governed changed forever as a result as substantive due process was dealt a critical blow and ever since has been continually minimized.