Trump General Discussion V - Page 46 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2017, 07:58 AM   #901
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
dabiggestu2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The edge of the known universe
Posts: 3,470
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salome View Post
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.
__________________

dabiggestu2fan is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:11 AM   #902
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
“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-vow...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.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:16 AM   #903
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,275
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Obama killed a significant amount of innocent civilians, let's not forget that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
“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-vow...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 is online now  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:20 AM   #904
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,275
Local Time: 08:45 AM
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.
cobl04 is online now  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:35 AM   #905
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,215
Local Time: 04:45 PM


Also, between 57 and 71% of white Evangelicals are insane.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:13 AM   #906
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
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.
the iron horse is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:22 AM   #907
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
dabiggestu2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The edge of the known universe
Posts: 3,470
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
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!
dabiggestu2fan is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:50 AM   #908
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Trump General Discussion V

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache In a Suitcase
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.

Quote:
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
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:53 AM   #909
War Child
 
TheFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 763
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
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
TheFox is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:08 AM   #910
The Fly
 
clipper699's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Carolina blue sky.
Posts: 229
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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 is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:14 AM   #911
The Fly
 
clipper699's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Carolina blue sky.
Posts: 229
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by clipper699 View Post
As I understand it, Reagan did it in 1985.
Sorry. Inaccurate post. Justice Kennedy was confirmed in the election year of1988.
clipper699 is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:14 AM   #912
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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/...alia.html?_r=0
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:21 AM   #913
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Trump General Discussion V

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFox View Post
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
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:23 AM   #914
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Trump General Discussion V

This is how we got Trump
BVS is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:31 AM   #915
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,215
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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
Quote:
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...
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:36 AM   #916
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,047
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Not much research needed...
Creating alternative facts is an exercise that should not be taken lightly.
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:39 AM   #917
War Child
 
TheFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 763
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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.
TheFox is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:51 AM   #918
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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.
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:12 AM   #919
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:45 PM
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?
anitram is offline  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:21 AM   #920
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Trump General Discussion V

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
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
__________________

Oregoropa is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×