President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Bazzo

Lol, Yates was fired for DOING her job, not failing to do it. Don't believe me? In a poetic twist of irony, here's Jeff Sessions(trump's incoming AG) questioning Yates at her confirmation hearing in 2015:

https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826289013891821568

SESSIONS: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you do to [sic] things you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper?

A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?' But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?

YATES: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.

jimmycrackcorm

Following @RoguePOTUSStaff on twitter. Supposedly white house insiders. If they are then they've confirmed that Gorsuch is to be the Supreme court justice ahead of the media.

Saying that Trump is bringing in both him and Hardiman to create an apprentice type scenario.

lazygal

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Following @RoguePOTUSStaff on twitter. Supposedly white house insiders. If they are then they've confirmed that Gorsuch is to be the Supreme court justice ahead of the media.

Saying that Trump is bringing in both him and Hardiman to create an apprentice type scenario.

Someone did an analysis of this account and the linguistic elements of deleted tweets suggested it's possibly a Russian account used to manipulate things not a genuine US insider one.

Hank Scorpio

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Following @RoguePOTUSStaff on twitter. Supposedly white house insiders. If they are then they've confirmed that Gorsuch is to be the Supreme court justice ahead of the media.

Saying that Trump is bringing in both him and Hardiman to create an apprentice type scenario.

This account is it?

https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/826131477519880192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The same ones following are probably the ones who think Wikileaks isn't real

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

@Billy

You know his hands are tied with the Saudis because they're "allies" and the US rely on Saudi crude imports.

He's said the US should be energy independent repeatably. It will take time.

From what I've read, Fada is an act so people can express their religious beliefs without discrimination. It's not directly designed to impose upon LGBT rights.

You continue to ignore the terror countries outlined were named by Obama's administration and previous legislature.

It doesn't matter if the US is energy tied to them for the very reason that it didn't matter to him or his supporters while he was railing against them and anyone's association (bar his own, which is very substantial) during the campaign. He can't have it both ways, much as he would like to. And that's not even the main reason they stayed off the banned lied, those personal business ties of his have far more to do with it, just as they are with Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and the UAE who also were not added to the said list.




You should read the FADA Act again, it's a very typical of certain elements of the right "you're discriminating against my right to discriminate!" act, meaning it's purpose is to make it OK for companies to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals, and has been rejected in both George and Arizona by Republican governors having passed the state Houses and Senates for that very reason. Other Republican states such as Inidana and Arkansas did pass it through, but had to make major revisions after heavy backlash. Over 3,000 faith leaders from Catholicism, Baptism, Judaism, Islam and I would assume others also have opposed it saying it adds nothing to protecting religious beliefs and instead only exists to use religion as a crutch to legitimise discrimination with some good examples near the bottom:

This opposition was written in July 2015, over 14 full months before Trump said he would pass it:

http://www.bendthearc.us/news/releases/3000-faith-leaders-and-clergy-call-congress-oppose-first-amendment-defense-act

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

July 21, 2015

Re: Faith Leaders Oppose the First Amendment Defense Act (H.R. 2802)

Dear Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings:

As clergy and faith leaders who serve diverse communities across the United States and are dedicated to affirming the religious freedom of every individual, we write to express our opposition to the First Amendment Defense Act (H.R. 2802).

The religious liberty upon which our nation was founded has allowed our country’s diverse religious landscape to flourish. Recently, however, what we have seen promoted as defending religious liberty too often reflects one particular religious perspective that does not at all respect that diversity of faith and belief, or the intent of our Founders. We believe that the First Amendment Defense Act does not respect the spirit of religious liberty—nor does it reflect fundamental values of treating all people with fairness and equality—and we therefore strongly oppose this legislation. Further, though people of faith are not a monolith and all are not in agreement on whether their faith sanctions LGBT relationships, we cannot in good conscience support legislation that favors one religious viewpoint over another and in the process discriminates against LGBT people, single mothers and unmarried couples.

The religious freedom of individuals and organizations, including clergy and houses of worship, who object to same-sex marriage are already protected by the First Amendment and federal law—and we, as clergy and faith leaders, continue to stand by the right of others to hold beliefs that may differ from our own while recognizing that for many of us, supporting LGBT individuals and families is a principle of our faith. Rather than protecting the First Amendment, this legislation actually undermines true religious liberty. The religious liberty on which our nation was founded guarantees us the freedom to hold any belief we choose and the right to act on our religious beliefs — but it does not allow us to harm or discriminate against others or to infringe on the religious beliefs of others.

By opening the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people, single mothers and unmarried couples, this legislation does nothing to protect our rights as people of diverse faith traditions and it has the potential to do considerable harm in the name of religion. For example, were this bill to become law it would:

- allow an organization to accept federal funds to run a homeless shelter or drug treatment program but then turn away from that program LGBT people or anyone who has a sexual relationship outside of marriage;
- allow hospitals to refuse dying patients visitation from their spouse or designated support person; and
- permit a government employee to deny services they have a duty to provide, including Veterans or Social Security benefits to a surviving member of a same-sex couple.

We are also troubled that this bill is so broad it could even prevent the federal government from enforcing longstanding laws designed to combat discrimination and promote equality. For example, it would let commercial landlords violate fair housing laws by refusing housing to a single mother based on the landlord’s religious beliefs and allow businesses to violate family medical leave laws by refusing to let a gay or lesbian employee care for a sick spouse.

As people of deep faith committed to a country that supports diverse, robust, and healthy religious expression and in the spirit of equality and justice, we urge you to oppose the First Amendment Defense Act.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Full list of signatories available on request]

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

...she wasn't fired for not doing her job; she was fired for doing her job, which is to uphold the Constitution.

No, her job is to give legal advice to the President and to conduct prosecution and defence cases on behalf of the govt.
Not to uphold the Constitution.
If you were paying a barrister and she said to you "I'm not going to help you because I'd rather prosecute you" then obviously that is not a good barrister to have on your team. Regardless of what the case is about.

The AG serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time;
.. The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his or her advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States

wiki
Somebody else challenged the executive order in court. Who is going to conduct the legal defence in this case, if not the AG?
A lawyer does not have to believe their client is an angel in order to do their job.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

No, her job is to give legal advice to the President and to conduct prosecution and defence cases on behalf of the govt.
Not to uphold the Constitution.
If you were paying a barrister and she said to you "I'm not going to help you because I'd rather prosecute you" then obviously that is not a good barrister to have on your team. Regardless of what the case is about.
wiki
Somebody else challenged the executive order in court. Who is going to conduct the legal defence in this case, if not the AG?
A lawyer does not have to believe their client is an angel in order to do their job.

You yourself put emphasis on a part you seem to be ignoring... and to give his or her advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States.

Her advise was required, despite not being asked for. She could have told them it was unconstitutional before they went to try and rush it through. Instead they didn't, and the clusterf*** of the last few days ensued.

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the US is energy tied to them for the very reason that it didn't matter to him or his supporters while he was railing against them and anyone's association (bar his own, which is very substantial) during the campaign. He can't have it both ways, much as he would like to. And that's not even the main reason they stayed off the banned lied, those personal business ties of his have far more to do with it, just as they are with Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and the UAE who also were not added to the said list.

Yes it does matter, because they're allies ( Saudis ). They exchange intel/import crude oils. You continue to ignore the fact that the same countries were outlined during the Obama administration as countries of terror, and agreed upon in congress hearings.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

Your stance is Trump didn't impose bans on other countries because he did business there. I agree with you that other countries should possibly be banned, and the Trump administration has said there will be countries added to the list in the future. Everything else as far as I can see, is conspiracy theory.

You should read the FADA Act again, it's a very typical of certain elements of the right "you're discriminating against my right to discriminate!"

I have read it, and I see no mention of it as an attack on LGBT rights. From what I read it prevents the Government from attacking individuals and entities that follow their belief about marriage.

scruffy66

Trump builds national security

http://podbay.fm/show/589864479/e/1485841075?autostart=1

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

Her advise was required, despite not being asked for.

The office of the AG was required to respond to these four court orders.
Basically, her response was to capitulate without mounting any defence at all. Hence Trump saying correctly that she betrayed him and the office of the AG.
Those four judges may well have a valid case, and they may even win.
But first the case has to be argued by both sides. And that will happen.

PopePalpatine

Bazzo wrote: »

Lol, Yates was fired for DOING her job, not failing to do it. Don't believe me? In a poetic twist of irony, here's Jeff Sessions(trump's incoming AG) questioning Yates at her confirmation hearing in 2015:

https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826289013891821568

Shure that's different, because "The Donald". :rolleyes:

Hank Scorpio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Shure that's different, because "The Donald". :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's the Donald.

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/667408740858134528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Sure look at fake tears Schumer or Saint Nancy Pelosi. These people all have political agenda's and Trump doesn't stand around entertaining it.

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

@Billy

You know his hands are tied with the Saudis because they're "allies" and the US rely on Saudi crude imports/Intel.

He's said the US should be energy independent repeatably. It will take time.

From what I've read, Fada is an act so people can express their religious beliefs without discrimination. It's not directly designed to impose upon LGBT rights.

You continue to ignore the terror countries outlined were named by Obama's administration and previous legislature.

Allies don't let Allies spread wahabbi Islamicist terrorism.

If Trump is afraid of Saudi Arabia, then he's not the man you voted for

Hank Scorpio

Akrasia wrote: »

Allies don't let Allies spread wahabbi Islamicist terrorism.

If Trump is afraid of Saudi Arabia, then he's not the man you voted for

He shouldn't defend them, but it's not as simple as ending a relationship with your pet goldfish. These problems run deep and are complicated.

The state department knew back in 2014 that the Saudi's were funding ISIS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yeah, it's the Donald.

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/667408740858134528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Sure look at fake tears Schumer or Saint Nancy Pelosi. These people all have political agenda's and Trump doesn't stand around entertaining it.

When people start using Donald's play ground nicknames it makes it hard to take those people seriously.

I have no idea why you are posting that tweet. Plenty of people are in favour of tighter border controls. Usually they want them checked over by people who know what they are doing. The entire ban was moronic. No thought went into it about people who were visiting home at the time oreceivers_seen what have you. Neither was any thought given to any us allies as seen by the lightning backtrack on dual citizenship people.

The idea of stricter border controls is fine. Don't introduce it without actually thinking about the effect it will have.

As for thexample list being drawn up by Obama. It was drawn up for different reasons. It was not drawn up to enact this stupid ban. Second of all, can no one in this administration think for themselves! You need actual reasons that this regime believes to defend this ban with. We found a list that happened to be lying around so we figured we may as well introduce a ban is not a valid way of policy making. You should review the countries on so Trump p is directly responsible for this. Quit blaming Obama, Trump made this decision knowing the countries involved (giving him the benefit of the doubt). If he can't defend why countries are or aren't on the list than that is on him. Not Obama. Using lists you just find lying around is a stupid plan unless you satisfy for yourself that the list is still relevant to your plans. I see no evidence that happened.

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

He shouldn't defend them, but it's not as simple as ending a relationship with your pet goldfish. These problems run deep and are complicated.

The state department new back in 2014 that the Saudi's were funding ISIS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

Yes. So drain the swamp. Or make a deal. Or take their oil. 3 trump policies that would solve the problem. In fact America liberating Saudi Arabia might actually be a just war given their genuinely pernicious influence on the world and their history of supporting and spreading global jihadists

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

When people start using Donald's play ground nicknames it makes it hard to take those people seriously.

As for thexample list being drawn up by Obama. It was drawn up for different reasons.

What reasons?

I posted those links, because lol hypocrisy.

Trump said he's going to temporarily suspend people from terror regions where vetting procedures don't occur. Is it not his right to do this, or for a country to protect it's borders?

I don't get the hysteria, at all.

Bazzo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What reasons?

I posted those links, because lol hypocrisy.

Trump said he's going to temporarily suspend people from terror regions where vetting procedures don't occur. Is it not his right to do this, or for a country to protect it's borders?

I don't get the hysteria, at all.

So to be clear, you're claiming there was NO vetting for immigrants or refugees from any of these countries previously and a ban had to be implemented in order to put them in place?

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

He shouldn't defend them, but it's not as simple as ending a relationship with your pet goldfish. These problems run deep and are complicated.

The state department knew back in 2014 that the Saudi's were funding ISIS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

what are you talking about pet goldfish for?

Goldfish are the most disposable of all pets.

If my goldfish attacked me and killed thousands of my friends, that fish is on a one way trip down the toilet bowl.

If Hillary knew the Saudis were bad in 2014, why does that excuse Trump in 2017?

Hillary lost, your guy won. I get that the republicans have been in blame mode for the last 8 years, but you're in power now. You need to take responsibility for your own candidate's behaviour.

Akrasia

euronews carrying trumps supreme court announcement live comment free if anyone wants to watch

Akrasia

gah, scalia junior.... Neil Gorsuch

49 years old. 30 years plus of negative hate filled anti progress anti women, anti reason nonsense

BorneTobyWilde

So it was no surprise. It was the guy people thought it would be .

BuilderPlumber

The saying goes .. 'drain the swamp'. What about draining the swamp of alt right aka white supremacists aka Ku Klux Klan aka white Christian ISIS types aka the REAL American President, Stephen Kevin Bannon. This hybrid of Bond villain Elliot Carver and David Brin's fictional American Nazi Nathan Holn is as evil as evil gets. Donald Trump is controlled by this dude, is afraid of this dude and is this dude's slave. Trump's life and his family's life is probably under threat from this lowlife. Like that Bond villain I mentioned, he plans a war with China. Like Holn, he plans his own nightmare state in what is now America and like Holn, he wants to start American Civil War #2.

I predict the following: Donald Trump 'dies of heart condition' or 'goes into coma' akin to Ariel Sharon. Mike Pence is told to go and does under threat. Bannon assumes office and sets in plan his evil intentions. Donald Trump was a fool to do any deal with this lowlife and he will rue the day. Trump pretended to be racist (his companies never actually were racist and employed all races) to win an election so he dealt with a real racist and now in case anyone wonders why Donald never smiles, Bannon is the reason and Donald knows it better than anyone else. Donald does not hate Russians, Africans, Iranians, Chinese or Arabs (as businessman, he sold to them all and opposed sanctions!!!!!) but he hates Bannon (this is why he does not smile these days) but it is too late for him to do anything about it. Bannon has Donald where he wants him. Where is 007 when we need him?

Hank Scorpio

Bazzo wrote: »

So to be clear, you're claiming there was NO vetting for immigrants or refugees from any of these countries previously and a ban had to be implemented in order to put them in place?

As from his campaign pdf, "Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur", which would imply there is no solid information available, either from those countries refusing to dispose information, or lack of from the US intel resources.

jimmycrackcorm

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

This account is it?

https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/826131477519880192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The same ones following are probably the ones who think Wikileaks isn't real

Surprise surprise, turns out @RoguePOTUSStaff do have the inside track, naming Gorsuch.
Their other tweets give a nice eye opener to whats going on.

Hank Scorpio

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Surprise surprise, turns out @RoguePOTUSStaff do have the inside track, naming Gorsuch.
Their other tweets give a nice eye opener to whats going on.

Yeah, except his name, was named in media outlets before that twitter account named him.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/01/31/sources-trump-will-select-judge-neil-gorsuch-for-scotus-n2279322

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/30/prediction-time-will-it-be-gorsuch-or-hardiman/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-set-to-make-supreme-court-choice-this-week-several-judges-on-short-list.html

The truth is out there.

RobertKK

It is nights like tonight that got Trump elected, an exit poll at the time of the election showed that supreme court nominees ranked highly as a reason some voted for Trump.
I don't think them voters will be disappointed with Trump and his choice.

RobertKK

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Surprise surprise, turns out @RoguePOTUSStaff do have the inside track, naming Gorsuch.
Their other tweets give a nice eye opener to whats going on.

I saw it elsewhere long before then.

Hank Scorpio

Here's the video. Trump looks stressed from the hysteria in the liberal media ( He doesn't )

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote: »

gah, scalia junior.... Neil Gorsuch

49 years old. 30 years plus of negative hate filled anti progress anti women, anti reason nonsense

As you can imagine, the analysts were on the radio immediately afterwards (I was in the car). The gist of it was that Trump picked probably the least controversial judge on his list, and most likely to get confirmed. Nobody expected Trump to appoint a Democrat, but as conservative judges go, this one is pretty mainstream. His background is fairly unimpeachable graduating with honors from Harvard and being a Marshall Scholar at Oxford.

Of interest, he clerked for White (a Democrat) and current swing vote justice Kennedy. It is normal for a Judge to take some leads from those they clerk for, so I would expect him to be a little less hard-line than Scalia was.

NPR is considered to be reasonably neutral, right? http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/511850519/who-is-neil-gorsuch-trumps-first-pick-for-the-supreme-court

"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.

Like Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he is in line to replace, Gorsuch has cultivated a reputation as a memorable and clear author of legal opinions. He also considers himself to be an originalist. Lawyers who practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where Gorsuch currently works, said he is a popular and approachable judge."

So, conservative, yes. Someone the Democrats should fight tooth and nail over? I think it could have been much worse for them.