Trump General Discussion V

[dabiggestu2fan]

Khizr Khan, Gold Star Father, on the New Refugee Ban - The New Yorker



I am sure that when (not if) any form of retaliation strikes the US, Trump/Bannon will use that as a "told you so" instead of a "you reap what you sow".

And they will blame Obama.

 

[BVS]

“I obviously can’t pretend to know the intentions of the new President, but let’s pretend the power consolidation move is what’s actually happening.”

~ from the link posted



This fear mongering that Trump is leading the U.S into a fascist regime is not based on any facts. It also ignores the check and balances as given in the U.S Constitution. It isn’t going to happen.



Fascist?



Quote:

In a 2015 interview with MSNBC, Trump indicated that the Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay marriage should stand.



Trump's pick for attorney general, Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, has pledged to enforce laws upheld by the Supreme Court, even those he disagreed with, such as decisions making abortion and same-sex marriage legal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-continue-lgbt-workplace-164018297.html

It's interesting how 8 years of fear disappear overnight when now it's your team.

All of a sudden censorship and overreach are cool.

 

[cobl04]

Obama killed a significant amount of innocent civilians, let's not forget that.

“I obviously can’t pretend to know the intentions of the new President, but let’s pretend the power consolidation move is what’s actually happening.”
~ from the link posted

This fear mongering that Trump is leading the U.S into a fascist regime is not based on any facts. It also ignores the check and balances as given in the U.S Constitution. It isn’t going to happen.

Fascist?

Quote:
In a 2015 interview with MSNBC, Trump indicated that the Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay marriage should stand.

Trump's pick for attorney general, Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, has pledged to enforce laws upheld by the Supreme Court, even those he disagreed with, such as decisions making abortion and same-sex marriage legal.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-continue-lgbt-workplace-164018297.html

Hi Iron Horse, when Sally Yates was appointed she agreed with Jeff Sessions when he said she should disobey unlawful orders from the President. As the Acting Attorney General she found Trump's ban to be unlawful. Trump then fired her. Whilst I - for the time being - agree that Trump will not lead you into a fascist regime, please explain to me how the firing of Yates and replacing her with a yes-woman is consistent with the "checks and balances" as in the Constitution.

Also I find your quoting of Trump on LGBT issues to be disingenuous - for two reasons. The first is that your implication is that Trump saying the ruling should stand is something that liberals should respect him for - I fundamentally disagree with that, as same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly partisan and it would serve him absolutely no purpose to reverse the decision. The second is that there are strong rumours he may be about to sign a new EO which will discriminate against LGBT people. That may prove to be incorrect, however.

 

[cobl04]

I really enjoy this forum, it's my only place I can engage in good discussion about American politics.

Would love to chat with the conservatives here about the new Scotus appointment. I would love for them to explain to me why it was okay for the GOP to block Obama's nomination for a year but now demand that the Dems not block Gorsuch and result to name-calling and whinging when they seek to do that.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Also, between 57 and 71% of white Evangelicals are insane.

 

[the iron horse]

Obama killed a significant amount of innocent civilians, let's not forget that.



Hi Iron Horse, when Sally Yates was appointed she agreed with Jeff Sessions when he said she should disobey unlawful orders from the President. As the Acting Attorney General she found Trump's ban to be unlawful. Trump then fired her. Whilst I - for the time being - agree that Trump will not lead you into a fascist regime, please explain to me how the firing of Yates and replacing her with a yes-woman is consistent with the "checks and balances" as in the Constitution.

Also I find your quoting of Trump on LGBT issues to be disingenuous - for two reasons. The first is that your implication is that Trump saying the ruling should stand is something that liberals should respect him for - I fundamentally disagree with that, as same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly partisan and it would serve him absolutely no purpose to reverse the decision. The second is that there are strong rumours he may be about to sign a new EO which will discriminate against LGBT people. That may prove to be incorrect, however.

On Yates: Did she make the case that the order was unconstitutional? No, she did not. If she did, please post it.

On LGBT: Where in Trump's decades long view as a public figure has he been disingenuous
to the LGBT community?

I have not heard these strong rumors he is about to sign a new EO to discriminate. My guess is they will prove to be false.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

On Yates: Did she make the case that the order was unconstitutional? No, she did not. If she did, please post it.

.

Has trump made the case to ban all those Muslims? Nope he did not. In fact he just went ahead with the EO without proper vetting. Most, even in his own party, did not know of it or its details until the actual day he signed it. It's a two way street buddy!

 

[Oregoropa]

I really enjoy this forum, it's my only place I can engage in good discussion about American politics.

Would love to chat with the conservatives here about the new Scotus appointment. I would love for them to explain to me why it was okay for the GOP to block Obama's nomination for a year but now demand that the Dems not block Gorsuch and result to name-calling and whinging when they seek to do that.

It is long held tradition not to put a SCOTUS nominee through in an election year. The last time it was done was 1888. The court can function with a vacancy.

As Trump has already filed for reelection, thus starting the 2020 campaign, I think we should allow the American people to decide who gets to pick the next Supreme Court justice.

My friend explained to me to reason he did this is that as a filed candidate certain non-profit organizations wouldn't be able fill the airwaves with attack ads against him personally or they would risk losing their tax-exempt status. They can do issue based advertising I believe.

Like it or not, the guy knows he has a bullseye on him. Smart move if you were. Make the opposition go after the substance.


I think our definition of Fascism may not be the proper usage for Trump so far.

Fascism : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Trump is doing the reverse of centralizing the entire nation under the government. Trump is not nationalizing industries like the Third Reich (Woodrow Wilson actually did this with several industries telegraph, coal transport . . . We don't think of him as a fascist)

Trump signed the 1 in 2 out EO. For every new government regulation enacted 2 must be discarded in the executive branch in regards orders with fiscal ramifications. To cut the burden of the state.

Also calling for federal government workforce cuts of 10-20%

Not exactly fascist by definition. If you still think Trump is a thug there are other governing archetypes out there to describe him. But he lacks the similarities to Mussolini, Hitler, Etc in a very important regard.

He does push a form of nationalism. Id argue a pushback against 20 years of globalism. That comparison is more fair.

As for forcible suppression. He does make fun of his arch-nemesis Schumer to great effect. Not seeing the suppression that we witnessed with the IRS targeting Tea Party groups over the past six years.








Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[TheFox]

On Yates: Did she make the case that the order was unconstitutional? No, she did not. If she did, please post it.

On LGBT: Where in Trump's decades long view as a public figure has he been disingenuous
to the LGBT community?

I have not heard these strong rumors he is about to sign a new EO to discriminate. My guess is they will prove to be false.

You seem to forget Bannon is running the show(even on the national security council now?!). Trump doesn't care about religion or LGBT or anyone else, he's only out for himself and his enrichment. The EOs seem to have been put on hold this week(see cyber EO yesterday being held at the last minute) after the furore over the ban. As reported by several journalists there's a draft LGBT EO circulating, they'll probably drip feed them now as the 1st week shambles is unsustainable. As for Trump being a fascist, what else can you call this? Before the election but you get the picture.....

https://twitter.com/NoorAjaj/status/826507461540642816

 

[clipper699]

It is long held tradition not to put a SCOTUS nominee through in an election year. The last time it was done was 1888. The court can function with a vacancy.

As I understand it, Reagan did it in 1985.

 

[clipper699]

As I understand it, Reagan did it in 1985.

Sorry. Inaccurate post. Justice Kennedy was confirmed in the election year of1988.

 

[Diemen]

It is long held tradition not to put a SCOTUS nominee through in an election year. The last time it was done was 1888.

That is completely incorrect. The last time it was done was with Anthony Kennedy in 1988. And Frank Murphy in 1940. And Benjamin Cardozo in 1932. John Clarke and Louis Brandeis in 1916. Mahlon Pitney in 1912. George Shiras Jr. in 1892. Melville Fuller and Joseph Lamar in 1888.

The ACTUAL facts show that election year nominees are usually confirmed. Of the 8 election year nominees since 1900, 6 were confirmed, and none took more than 125 days to be confirmed.

There is no precedent for the Republican's obstruction of Merrick Garland.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...rt-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?_r=0

 

[Oregoropa]

You seem to forget Bannon is running the show(even on the national security council now?!)

Wait. I thought it was the Russians.

Diemen - haven't read the article yet. Gotta make sure the situations and timing are analogous before I fully concede the point.

EDIT: Just checked the history on Kennedy. Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement in June 1987. Reagan nominated Bork which failed. In November nominated Kennedy. Confirmed in February.

The vacancy for Kennedy was known 17 months before the election. The unexpected vacancy for Garland appeared 10 months before. While the campaign season was in full swing within the calendar year. That is the significant difference. Not comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

This is how we got Trump

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Wait. I thought it was the Russians.

Diemen - haven't read the article yet. Gotta make sure the situations and timing are analogous before I fully concede the point.

EDIT: Just checked the history on Kennedy. Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement in June 1987. Reagan nominated Bork which failed. In November nominated Kennedy. Confirmed in February.

The vacancy for Kennedy was known 17 months before the election. The unexpected vacancy for Garland appeared 10 months before. While the campaign season was in full swing within the calendar year. That is the significant difference. Not comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

Not much research needed...

 

[Salome]

Not much research needed...

Creating alternative facts is an exercise that should not be taken lightly.

 

[TheFox]

Wait. I thought it was the Russians.

Diemen - haven't read the article yet. Gotta make sure the situations and timing are analogous before I fully concede the point.

EDIT: Just checked the history on Kennedy. Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement in June 1987. Reagan nominated Bork which failed. In November nominated Kennedy. Confirmed in February.

The vacancy for Kennedy was known 17 months before the election. The unexpected vacancy for Garland appeared 10 months before. While the campaign season was in full swing within the calendar year. That is the significant difference. Not comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Talking about the Russians, I see they're increasing their military operations in Ukraine. Silence from the WH.

 

[Diemen]

Wait. I thought it was the Russians.

Diemen - haven't read the article yet. Gotta make sure the situations and timing are analogous before I fully concede the point.

EDIT: Just checked the history on Kennedy. Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement in June 1987. Reagan nominated Bork which failed. In November nominated Kennedy. Confirmed in February.

The vacancy for Kennedy was known 17 months before the election. The unexpected vacancy for Garland appeared 10 months before. While the campaign season was in full swing within the calendar year. That is the significant difference. Not comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Oh yes, those 7 months totally justify unprecedented obstruction towards a President who still had nearly an entire year left of his term.

 

[anitram]

So long as we're clear then that if any liberal justice kicks it within 10 months of the 2020 election, no Republican will demand a replacement.

Right, Oregoropa?

 

[Oregoropa]

So long as we're clear then that if any liberal justice kicks it within 10 months of the 2020 election, no Republican will demand a replacement.

Right, Oregoropa?

I agree. The Dems will be in primary season (Maybe GOP too, depending on how things pan out). The same courtesy should be afforded. Allow the the vacancy to be an issue on the ballot.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[anitram]

I agree. The Dems will be in primary season (Maybe GOP too, depending on how things pan out). The same courtesy should be afforded. Allow the the vacancy to be an issue on the ballot.

And you truthfully believe that the GOP leadership will "afford" this courtesy?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I agree. The Dems will be in primary season (Maybe GOP too, depending on how things pan out). The same courtesy should be afforded. Allow the the vacancy to be an issue on the ballot.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

The presidential election starts earlier and earlier with each passing election - it can not be used as the barometer. No where in the Constitution does it state that a justice should not be nominated during an election cycle. The Republicans had a constitutional responsibility, and they abandoned it over partisan politics. It was a shameful act.

The President has the right to appoint someone to the court, and that appointee should be heard by Congress.

Garland should have gotten a hearing. Period.

What happens from here on out began with the Republicans refusing to give a hearing to Garland.

 

[TheFox]

Trumps speech to the Black history month event.....

 

[anitram]

What an embarrassing mess he is.

 

[Irvine511]

The presidential election starts earlier and earlier with each passing election

he's already filed for re-election. we are in an election already. we cannot confirm a SCOTUS nominee while there's an election going on.

see you in 2020.

 

[DaveC]

My friend explained to me to reason he did this is that as a filed candidate certain non-profit organizations wouldn't be able fill the airwaves with attack ads against him personally or they would risk losing their tax-exempt status. They can do issue based advertising I believe.

Like it or not, the guy knows he has a bullseye on him. Smart move if you were. Make the opposition go after the substance.

uh, no. the reason he filed immediately is because once that form is filed he can legally begin accepting bribes "campaign donations".

 

[anitram]

he's already filed for re-election. we are in an election already. we cannot confirm a SCOTUS nominee while there's an election going on.

see you in 2020.

Maybe if the Democrats in Congress had one spine between them...

 

[BEAL]

Yep. All these protests are fine and dandy, and can instill a bit of hope for society....

But until the elected officials do something about what's going on, it's all visual, self congratulatory action.

The only way congress stands up to Trump is if their own financial interests get shit on. Until then, it'll be lip service.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Trumps speech to the Black history month event.....

every time i think "okay, deep breath, it is what it is, stop dwelling on just how absolutely asinine it was that millions upon millions voted for a reality TV star to be president and move on to simply fighting policy" something like this comes out, and i smash my head against a wall.

 

[BoMac]

I am continually amazed at how he is incapable of letting any slight, perceived or real, go.