The Official Former President Trump thread

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Wee Willie said:

Fair do's but I get all my political knowledge from the illustrious forums in P&B.
Who should I believe regarding American politics?
A guy who sounds like he is up-to-date with the political scene in America or a guy who says he bides in Inversnekie?

Because a year or so he was playing the role of an ultra politically correct feminist, now he's playing a rabid white supremacist. And he pretends to know nothing about the UK, but comes from Greenock. 

[Wee Willie]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Because a year or so he was playing the role of an ultra politically correct feminist, now he's playing a rabid white supremacist. And he pretends to know nothing about the UK, but comes from Greenock. 

I didnae ken that.

16 hours ago, Deplorable said:

In our Constitutional structure the entire executive branch is just an extension of the President. The President is the elected position. The bureaucrats within the executive branch are supposed to carry out his wishes faithfully within the law. The fact that you don't like a policy has nothing to do with it's legality or constitutionality. If you have a problem with a policy you are asked to implement then you resign. At least that's how professional public servants would handle that situation. Politicized public servants will seek to undermine democracy from within.

 

 

18 hours ago, Deplorable said:

The executive order was approved by the legal team at her own department before being issued...

Are these statements true or no true?

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

I didnae ken that.

 

Are these statements true or no true?

The first correctly said that she was duty bound to follow legal instructions. A judge said they weren't and she agreed with him, so she did her duty.

As far as the second goes they avoided the official channels and talked to a couple of friendly lawyers who either screwed up or were ignored.

[Wee Willie]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The first correctly said that she was duty bound to follow legal instructions. A judge said they weren't and she agreed with him, so she did her duty.

As far as the second goes they avoided the official channels and talked to a couple of friendly lawyers who either screwed up or were ignored.

Then it's time Div started a star system tae show which posters can be believed and which ones cannae.

[Cerberus]

Putting Gorsuch on the Scotus is probably the least divisive decision Trump has made and the Democrats are vocal in opposition?
Where have they been for the past week?

[welshbairn]

35 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

Putting Gorsuch on the Scotus is probably the least divisive decision Trump has made and the Democrats are vocal in opposition?
Where have they been for the past week?

Makes you wonder if he's setting a trap. If the Democrats block him it could well piss off the Republican Senators enough for them to change the rules to a simple majority. Then Trump nominates someone more extreme and gets his other Cabinet positions through without fuss.

[wastecoatwilly]

The 40% that got away.....

[doulikefish]

http://cityworldnews.com/native-american-amnesty/

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

 

The 40% that got away.....

That cheered me up!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Hmm, I wasn't suggesting her actions were dangerous, though I agree she possibly knew she'd be sacked.
My difficulty with this is that if her actions were dangerous, it says something. Upholding the law should only be dangerous when a dictator is in power. Otherwise the law of the land should be respected. I do agree that politicians etc should stand up for their beliefs more instead of towing the party line- but that's not just what she was doing. She was upholding the law and the Constitution.
In an unrelated but similar thing here, we had the MSM crying foul about the BREXIT stuff going to court and the Judges were declared to be 'The enemies of the people' and Farage et al stirring outrage. That is really concerning to me. If you lose the Judiciary (or impartial Judiciary) from the functions of state you are in a dangerous place.

Absolutely this.

It really disturbs me how some people think we shouldn't have checks and balances.

Otherwise everyone will just say they were following (executive) orders.

[Granny Danger]

The Democrats should be opposing absolutely everything.  There should be no bipartisanship under this President.

[Deplorable]

5 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

Then it's time Div started a star system tae show which posters can be believed and which ones cannae.

I will break down the arguments as I understand them, but obviously I'm not a lawyer.

Trump: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives President power to bar any class of people from entry to the US on national security grounds.

Anti-Trump: Immigration Act of 1965 bans discrimination against immigration based on national origin.

Trump: 1965 Act didn't specifically repeal Presidents power under national security grounds. And it would only apply to immigrants, not people on work or tourist visas.

Anti-Trump: The 1965 Act was passed after 1952 Act so it must take precedence.

Trump: Under Obama Congress passed a law allowing the President to treat Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Libya differently than other countries, so this new act overrides the 1965 Act even if anti-Trump logic is correct.

 

As for what Welshy claimed:

1. Judges have not overturned Trumps order. They issued narrow stays so that people with an otherwise legal right to be in the US would not be held in detention at airports because they were on a plane when the order was issued. 

2. Trump did not just go find sympathetic lawyers in the Justice Department. He went through the established process and the Office of Legal Counsel within the Justice Dept. approved the orders. They did introduce this order on a need to know basis and cut out some parts of the bureaucracy that would normally be in the loop. The Acting AGs action proved why this was necessary. There is a public campaign going on that officials within the Executive Branch should undermine Trump when possible.

3. Part of the job of the Justice Department in our Constitutional system is to defend the Executive Branch in court. The Acting Attorney General was not a front line officer enforcing a ruling she thought illegal. She was charged with defending the administrations position in court. As I stated above, there is a seemingly legitimate argument for Trump to make. Since the order isn't ridiculously illegal in an obvious way, it's her job to fight for the President's position in court. It's the courts job to stop the ruling if it's illegal.

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Deplorable

[hehawhehaw]

3 hours ago, Cerberus said:

Putting Gorsuch on the Scotus is probably the least divisive decision Trump has made and the Democrats are vocal in opposition?
Where have they been for the past week?

Organising protests against any executive orders President Trump has signed.

[Deplorable]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Absolutely this.

It really disturbs me how some people think we shouldn't have checks and balances.

Otherwise everyone will just say they were following (executive) orders.

The checks and balances are the courts who have final say on legality and the Congress who can change the law. Bureaucrats inside the Executive Branch are not Constitutionally supposed to function as a check on Presidential power. They are to function as an extension of Presidential power.

[Deplorable]

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Because a year or so he was playing the role of an ultra politically correct feminist, now he's playing a rabid white supremacist. And he pretends to know nothing about the UK, but comes from Greenock. 

Not from Geenock. Never been to Scotland.

Not a white supremacist or a white separatist.

Not Swampy.

I found this forum looking for something to follow along when I occasionally watch Rangers games online.

[hehawhehaw]

2 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

Not from Geenock. Never been to Scotland.

Not a white supremacist or a white separatist.

Not Swampy.

I found this forum looking for something to follow along when I occasionally watch Rangers games online.

So now we have it. You're a Rangers man

[mjw]

He couldn't really be anything else.

[Bishop Briggs]

[dorlomin]

DeVos the education secretary seems to be a  "teach the controversy" creationist and Jerry Falwell, a true died in the wool creationist is to head the higher education task force.

 

There is no defending this utter horseshite. This is not being a bit pro free enterprise and unregulated markets right wing. Its the drooling fanatics. Climate change deniers, creationists and antivaxxers.

 

 

 

[Arabdownunder]

4 hours ago, Deplorable said:

I will break down the arguments as I understand them, but obviously I'm not a lawyer.

Trump: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives President power to bar any class of people from entry to the US on national security grounds.

Anti-Trump: Immigration Act of 1965 bans discrimination against immigration based on national origin.

Trump: 1965 Act didn't specifically repeal Presidents power under national security grounds. And it would only apply to immigrants, not people on work or tourist visas.

Anti-Trump: The 1965 Act was passed after 1952 Act so it must take precedence.

Trump: Under Obama Congress passed a law allowing the President to treat Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Libya differently than other countries, so this new act overrides the 1965 Act even if anti-Trump logic is correct.

 

All well and good if you ignore the exception for followers of minority religions in these countries which is included in the EA. Given they are all Muslim majority countries its effectively a ban only on Muslims from these countries which is why it is likely to be found unconstitutional.