President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[byu71]

I love it when celebrities talk about shit they know nothing about and act as though they are experts.

Also, chartel? <snort>

I have never watched the show, but hear it mentioned a lot. I looked it up and I guess their ratings are way down and their audience is about 1.1 million. 1% of the TV viewing audience is watching. I think they have to say outlandish things so the media will mention them.

[BlueK]

Well, she's right. The President cannot overturn Roe v. Wade by himself without violating the Constitution. *She did mispronounce chattel, though.

I think we elected this president so he would violate the Constitution. At least he seems to think so.

[creekster]

There's a dark part of me that welcomes revolution, that want's to blow it up. I want no part of Trump's America.

This is an interesting statement coming from you. I don't always agree with you but you usually seem pretty cogent. So, I am curious: what, exactly, constitutes "Trump's America?" IOW, apart from everything else that America is already, including a melting pot, or marketplace of ideas and cultural trends that ebb and flow form time to time, what is it that Trump is doing or has done that you want no part of (and that would be improved by revolution)?

[creekster]

Well, she's right. The President cannot overturn Roe v. Wade by himself without violating the Constitution. *She did mispronounce chattel, though.

Sort of. But abortion is not in the constitution, as you know, but I am not sure if she knows that.

[BlueK]

a few days too late for my taste, but kudos to Republican members of congress for starting to speak out against some of the insanity.

"If you're going to spend that kind of money, you're going to have to show me where you're going to get that money," said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a key swing vote who has already broken with Trump over his nominee for secretary of education.
"I don't see how you can get a bill like that through (Congress) without offsets," she added. "I don't see how that's possible."

Trump's wall already faces legal hurdles given the likelihood that it could spawn lawsuits at the border. But if Congress doesn't go along with his funding plan, it could effectively stall Trump's proposal right out of the gate. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that the cost could range from $12 billion-$15 billion, while Ryan suggested that the project may not be fully offset with spending cuts, saying the wall is "a national security priority."

Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican who represents the border state of Texas, was deeply skeptical about whether a wall alone would be enough to deter immigrants from entering the country illegally. And he issued a stark warning to Trump.
"I have concerns about spending un-offset money, which adds to the debt, period," Cornyn said bluntly when asked about the wall. "I don't think we're just going to be able to solve border security with a physical barrier because people can come under, around it and through it."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politi...ans/index.html

[PaloAltoCougar]

Well, she's right. The President cannot overturn Roe v. Wade by himself without violating the Constitution. *She did mispronounce chattel, though.

I didn't see the show but I think she's talking about Gorsuch, not Trump. But she's mistaken that Gorsuch (or more accurately, the Court) can't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court overturns earlier decisions occasionally; perhaps she's arguing that Dred Scott needs to be reinstated.

..."I have concerns about spending un-offset money, which adds to the debt, period," Cornyn said bluntly when asked about the wall. "I don't think we're just going to be able to solve border security with a physical barrier because people can come under, around it and through it."
l[/url]

Among the many reasons The Wall is a stupid idea is that its effectiveness against a particular immigrant is an inverse function of that person's criminality. I get that it may stop a family with children, but as for the "bad dudes" who intend to commit all the crimes Trump describes, I'm pretty sure when they see The Wall they're not going to react with, "Curses, foiled again!"

[BlueK]

I didn't see the show but I think she's talking about Gorsuch, not Trump. But she's mistaken that Gorsuch (or more accurately, the Court) can't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court overturns earlier decisions occasionally; perhaps she's arguing that Dred Scott needs to be reinstated.

I think they almost did overturn it once. I seem to remember it was a 5-4 vote with Justice O'Connor being the swing vote that kept it from being overturned.

[BlueK]

I didn't see the show but I think she's talking about Gorsuch, not Trump. But she's mistaken that Gorsuch (or more accurately, the Court) can't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court overturns earlier decisions occasionally; perhaps she's arguing that Dred Scott needs to be reinstated.



Among the many reasons The Wall is a stupid idea is that its effectiveness against a particular immigrant is an inverse function of that person's criminality. I get that it may stop a family with children, but as for the "bad dudes" who intend to commit all the crimes Trump describes, I'm pretty sure when they see The Wall they're not going to react with, "Curses, foiled again!"

The Wall is nothing but a stupid symbolic monument to remind Americans that foreigners trying to come here to participate in the economy of our wealthy nation are bad people. Because like you said, it has no chance of really keeping out those who are bad, it's nothing but very expensive propaganda directed to the element of our population that wants to have their low opinions of foreigners validated.

[imanihonjin]

I didn't see the show but I think she's talking about Gorsuch, not Trump. But she's mistaken that Gorsuch (or more accurately, the Court) can't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court overturns earlier decisions occasionally; perhaps she's arguing that Dred Scott needs to be reinstated.

Correct, they were talking about Grosuch. I think she must pine for the days of Plessy v. Ferguson or Korematsu.

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[byu71]

I didn't see the show but I think she's talking about Gorsuch, not Trump. But she's mistaken that Gorsuch (or more accurately, the Court) can't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court overturns earlier decisions occasionally; perhaps she's arguing that Dred Scott needs to be reinstated.



Among the many reasons The Wall is a stupid idea is that its effectiveness against a particular immigrant is an inverse function of that person's criminality. I get that it may stop a family with children, but as for the "bad dudes" who intend to commit all the crimes Trump describes, I'm pretty sure when they see The Wall they're not going to react with, "Curses, foiled again!"

Here is why I am so confused on the issue. You are a bright guy and along with a lot of other people I recognize as bright the Wall is a stupid ineffective idea.

Then there is General Kelly along with also some bright people who claim the Wall is a good idea.

Why I would lean against it would be because that is a heck of a lot of money to spend when I don't see a consensus of bright people agreeing.

I sure as heck do wish they would come up with something more effective than has been done.

For those here if you have committed a crime, adios. If not you come out of the closet, get permanent residence and go through some process like everyone else to get citizenship. From now on our laws are enforced. If you get caught voting illegally, adios.

Lastly as a side note I find it interesting that our friends in Mexico and Australia have some of the strictest immigration policies in the world.

[BlueK]

Here is why I am so confused on the issue. You are a bright guy and along with a lot of other people I recognize as bright the Wall is a stupid ineffective idea.

Then there is General Kelly along with also some bright people who claim the Wall is a good idea.

Why I would lean against it would be because that is a heck of a lot of money to spend when I don't see a consensus of bright people agreeing.

I sure as heck do wish they would come up with something more effective than has been done.

For those here if you have committed a crime, adios. If not you come out of the closet, get permanent residence and go through some process like everyone else to get citizenship. From now on our laws are enforced. If you get caught voting illegally, adios.

Lastly as a side note I find it interesting that our friends in Mexico and Australia have some of the strictest immigration policies in the world.

I was listening to Mark Cuban the other day talking about how Silicon Valley is starting to get pretty nervous that Trump is next going to try to crack down on legal immigration as well. I am very pro-free market because I believe the market can manage the economy a lot better than the government can. Ask the Soviet Union about that. The problem I have with super strict immigration laws is that it boils down to the government telling business that they're only allowed to hire certain people and not others. We wouldn't tolerate that in any other part of business. At least, conservatives wouldn't. Socialists would.

From an economics perspective, it's no different than the government mandating the amount of steel you can use or the number of goods you can produce. If the government suddenly tells buinesses they can't hire that bright engineer from India even though he is clearly the best person for the job, then it will limit that company's competitiveness in the global marketplace and they either start to fade or they choose to relocate somewhere else where they are more free to hire the best people possible.

There really aren't very strong economic arguments for limiting immigration when it comes down to it. (unless you're not really in favor of free enterprise, which is another issue altogether). But if you are, then the real reason to limit immigration is social and cultural, but no one really wants to go there, so they use the economic stuff as a smokescreen to cover that they don't really care much for folks who bring a different culture and language when they come here.

[byu71]

I was listening to Mark Cuban the other day talking about how Silicon Valley is starting to get pretty nervous that Trump is next going to try to crack down on legal immigration as well.

I don't consider Cuban bright. I consider him lucky. Go read what he was advising investors to do in 2013. The market is up about 50% since he advised everyone to go to cash. Go see what he said was going to happen to the market if Trump got elected.

That said, he like SU, could be 50/50 in his predictions and yea I could see this one being accurate when it comes to Silicon Valley's needs.

[BlueK]

I don't consider Cuban bright. I consider him lucky. Go read what he was advising investors to do in 2013. The market is up about 50% since he advised everyone to go to cash. Go see what he said was going to happen to the market if Trump got elected.

That said, he like SU, could be 50/50 in his predictions and yea I could see this one being accurate when it comes to Silicon Valley's needs.

Nice deflection from what I said. The truth remains that super strict immigration law is nothing more than government central planning in the labor market.

[byu71]

Nice deflection from what I said. The truth remains that super strict immigration law is nothing more than government central planning in the labor market.

Why mention Mark Cuban unless you were using him as a credible source. Hell, I think you, PAC, JL and some of the other Trump haters are brighter than Cuban

I watch TV. I see the protests. I know a lot of people are in pain over Trump winning. I am just trying to look at the possible positive side.