Deplorable

No. Black issues have nothing to do with income and everything to do with cultural habits regarding wealth. All redistribution would go down the drain in the long run. You have to fix the culture. All research shows that if you give a black and white person the same income at the same points in life, the white person ends up ridiculously more wealthy at all points. Different habits regarding spending, investing, family/friend obligations, etc. Abolition of guns might be a long term fix 30-40 years down the road. Maybe. In the short term you are going to have to explain how you are going to disarm the population that currently have guns. Mass police searches of homes in black areas and long term incarceration of people caught with the newly illegal guns? Guns are easy to hide and there are over 300 million in private hands currently. No criminal is going to worry about a potential 6 month or 1 year jail sentence on the off chance that he is caught with a gun.

If only there was some movement over the past few years that Obama embraced which may have had an effect on how black areas of major cities are policed.

My Senator, Joe Manchin, was the only Democrat to vote for Jeff Sessions. Even the Economist is coming close to admitting the truth about Obama's greatest affect on black america.

Which words? Whatever you think of Trump, some of the guys behind him like Steve Bannon are very, very smart. I personally think that there's more to Trump than people give him credit for.

A few leftists are starting to wonder if this immigration ban is worth risking their dominance of the federal court system. No court but the Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution. All others are subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. They can be abolished. They can have their jurisdiction stripped on certain matters. The courts have been great for the left over the past decades and their stature has enjoyed wide support from both the public and both parties. If Trump and the Republicans decide to go to war with the lower courts over rulings that are based on political positions rather than law it's a battle that they could very will win. At the very least the standing of the courts would be lowered to the level of the other government branches in the eyes of the public, which would have a huge effect on their ability to operate. A few have even suggested that this might be part of a Bannon plot to bring down the judiciary, which has long been a goal of the populist right.

Tories have never liked Americans. They are why we fought for independence. We kicked ours out so they had to start Canada. Washington, DC: Clinton - 90.5%, Trump - 4.1% Arlington County, Virginia - Clinton 77%, Trump 16.9% Montgomery County, Maryland - Clinton 75.9%, Trump 20.3% Prince George's County, Maryland - Clinton 89.3%, Trump 8.3% These are the federal workers and the political media. I don't believe one leak coming out of the federal government right now. There's an organized effort within the bureaucracy to resist Trump and the media showed during the campaign that they are not trustworthy when covering Trump.

I agree that this was most likely a joke gone wrong because it's inappropriate for a President to speak publicly about another person without considering his words. What's strange is that the left is acting like a President can't challenge his political opponents. Obama stood in front of the country with the Supreme Court in attendance and admonished them for a ruling that he himself didn't understand based on the comments. If I remember correctly the anti-bomb crowd claim that the Japanese government didn't have enough of an opportunity to study what had just occurred at Hiroshima, but I could be off on that statement. I don't personally think they would have quit. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have had a major objection if we tried that first. I know they had several worries. We only had a handful of bombs and they didn't want to waste one. The Russian Army was moving east in preparation to enter the war and we wanted it over before they got ideas about how much land to claim. Recently I heard a historian mention that Truman had political calculations as well. He was a largely unknown politician who had been inserted last minute as Vice President for Roosevelt's fourth term. If the public found out that he held off using a weapon that could end the war while US soldiers were dying in great numbers then his reelection would have been impossible.

Both sides are right. The tool is helpful in fighting organized crime. It's also something that's been used against ordinary citizens by local law enforcement taking things too far. I'd get rid of it, but this is an example of the problems that come from allowing people from more corrupt places into the country. Organized crime always follows and then restrictions that end up hurting ordinary citizens are required to combat the new crime.

I wouldn't necessarily have complained if they dropped it on an uninhabited area, but like you say, this was thought out. And it's not like the nuke was any worse than what we were already doing to the Japanese cities. It just took one bomb instead of weeks of raids. That's the only difference. Yep. The whole of the US economy is McDonalds and Obamacare. Haha.

Chatham House survey of Europe on Muslim immigration. All Further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped. UK: 47% agree. 25% disagree Well, what do you know? That's about the same % as people in the US who support Trump's Executive Order. Time for a few people here to get off their high horse and out of their own bubble. Somehow a dumb American knew better than most of you what people in the UK think of Muslim immigration. Poland: 71% agree. Austria: 65%, Germany: 53%, Italy: 51%, Spain: 41%

Beer, chicken wings, and nachos is what I ate. Trying my best to take a few weeks off my life.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/patriots-owner-robert-kraft-hoping-donald-trump-can-get-super-bowl-ring-back-from-putin-212458233.html Patriots owner Robert Kraft hoping Donald Trump can get Super Bowl ring back from Putin Many are concerned about the possibility of Trump easing sanctions with Russia, but Patriots owner Robert Kraft might be one who is rooting for improved relations with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Back in 2005, Kraft met Putin and allowed him to try on his Super Bowl ring. Kraft meant it as a gesture, not as a gift. Putin pocketed the $25K piece of jewelry. . . . Despite various attempts during the Barack Obama administration, Kraft was never able to get the ring back. Now he’s hoping Trump, who plans to meet with Putin at some point soon, can get it back for him. Kraft told Fox Sports during Sunday’s pregame show: “I do have an emotional attachment to that ring.” Kraft added that he’s willing to have a special ring made for Putin with his name on it. The one Putin currently owns — we assume he hasn’t hocked it — has Kraft’s name on it.

A frog? No!!!! He probably wonders why Putin is such a villain compared to other US and UK "allies."

We elected a person who said he was going to stop Muslim immigration. I voted for him at least partially on that basis. Once elected he implemented a small step that way. Everyone in this thread is celebrating an unelected judge overturning this small step based on no cited law. The majority of Americans support Trump on this policy. We were trying to influence change as an electorate. No, I'm not happy with Putin. I think he's an asshole. What I think is that he's decent when it comes to non-Western leaders. Our last few Presidents have bowed down to terrible people while turning their back on a country that should be our ally in the post-Communist world.

Not basing our democracy on Putin's Russia. Eastern and Western people have different cultural heritages whether you want to believe it or not. Where Putin is 100% right is fighting for his own people and against Western NGOs. Go talk to actual Russian people and you will understand where Putin's anti-Western feelings are coming from.

Whose the new Henry? Don't know him.

My immediate thought when I saw it was the controversy regarding the Screaming Savage mascot for the Atlanta Braves.

Why do you have Henry Aaron as your avatar? I thought you were a North Cali US sports fan.

Ok, two judges from the 9th Circuit of appeals declined to issue a stay immediately without hearing arguments. They will make that decision once the arguments have been submitted next week. Then the earlier ruling will go before the entire 9th Circuit. This is the most left wing court (In the US that means the most likely to overturn democratic decisions) and the most overturned circuit at the Supreme Court.. What I've read says that it's likely even the 9th Circuit will uphold Trump's order, but even on the off chance that they do not that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor. What's wrong with what he said? Seems about right. The US has tried to walk the line between being the "good guys" and supporting our own interests. We haven't done good at either in the post Cold War world (unless you mean the extreme rich by "our own interests"). The Western left hates Putin because he's white, supports Christianity, looks after his own people first, and wants Muslims to live in Muslim lands. Western right wingers would never support Putin the the West, but the left is terrified that people might see a thing or two in what Putin supports that might be modified to Western culture.

So, it looks pretty certain that the Seattle judge will be overruled and the Boston judge which upheld Trump's travel ban made the right call. This is an article from Dan Abrams' website. He's been NBC's go to guy for law questions since I can remember and used to have his won show on MSNBC. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/ Cliffs: 1. Both judges seemed to reject any Constitutional issues with the Executive Order. No problems with freedom of religion or due process. 2. Both judges seemed to reject any statutory basis for overturning the EO. No problems with the 1965 Immigration Act. 3. The Seattle judge ruled based on "rational basis." Basically a law has to bear some relationship to a legitimate public purpose. For instance, you can't ban Russians from the US in order to stop the growth of cricket. Russians don't play cricket very much and stopping the growth of cricket isn't a legitimate public purpose. While stopping terrorism is a legitimate public purpose, the Seattle judge seemed to say that because the government couldn't prove terrorism was coming from these countries there was no "rational basis." The Boston judge noted that the Supreme Court has stated that rational basis "is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices." 4. The Boston judge's ruling was detailed and cited a wide range of precedents. The Seattle ruling contained almost no precedents.

Northern West Virginia. Right now: Drive a cab, deliver Chinese food, own a few rental properties.

Nothing to do with Trump's order. He was stopped due to a policy that dates from the Obama years.

People with mental health problems that could make them violent are already supposed to be on the list of people who will not pass background checks. It is said that there are gaps in reporting, but that's an issue of implementation rather than policy. Obama's order made it so that anybody on Social Security or Disability that had a designated trustee for their finances would be put on the list of people who would fail. I'm not sure how being able to control your finances correlates with violent behavior for people who have never committed a crime or been committed to a mental institution. What's amazing is how often Mr. Danger is wrong, misinformed, or completely misleading in his posts about Trump and American politics. It's quite the skill. I have a mentally disabled uncle. He's not on Disability because he works, but he would easily qualify if our family tried. He can't live on his own mainly because he's incapable of understanding finance, along with his eating habits if food is not prepared for him. He occasionally goes hunting for small animals with a guy from his church. In an alternate world where he was signed up for Disability, he would be among those banned from buying guns. A judge in Boston just before this cleared the Executive Orders in another ruling. Supposedly this Seattle judge recently declared "Black Lives Matter" from the bench during a police case, drawing gasps from the audience. Hopefully he's just a liberal activist who will be overturned. I haven't seen the basis of the ruling from Seattle, but I did see that the ACLU was arguing in other cases that the EOs were unconstitutional based on the Establishment Clause. Any judge who buys that deserves to have his head examined. I'm not sure how we can extend the Bill of Rights to non-citizens residing in other countries. Citizenship and immigration is clearly a federal issue. How many countries would have 40% favoring immigration from Somalia? 10?

Oh, I agree that US foreign policy is a part of the problem. The nature of Islam is also the problem. The US has done a bunch of unsavory things in Latin America and we've made a bunch of enemies there, but Hispanic immigrants are not engaged in political violence against ordinary Americans in response. I'm sure people in India might bear a few grudges against your country, but I haven't heard about them using those historical grudges to kill ordinary British citizens. The idea that banning Muslim immigration is more dangerous than allowing large scale Muslim immigration is laughable. You are perfectly within your right to argue that we should still allow Muslim immigration despite the problem of terrorist attacks. But the idea that lowering Muslim immigration makes us less safe is ridiculous.