Less than two weeks into his term, Donald has done something reminiscent of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Hey, we'll see how Donald does "protecting our country".
I don't see why it's so ominous about firing her. She was on borrowed time anyway, and what was he supposed to do? What I find a little ominous is that Trump apparently signed this EO without getting any input from the DOJ first.
Six failed states and one criminal one (Iran) were banned. No other country with Muslims was banned. Clearly it's not a Muslim ban when the ban doesn't apply to people who are Muslim but not from the seven countries on the list. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.
the way I understand it, the ban excludes religious minorities. The seven countries listed are majority Muslim, so the ban only affects Muslims coming from those seven countries. How is that not banning Muslims?
Right. Because that was the reality in the US before Trump became President. A firing squad in every tree; two if it's a Redwood.
There is absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional about excluding certain groups of foreigners. We did it for 200 years, you dumb asses. So when people like 14D start making wildly inaccurate claims it is hard not to laugh at him.
Because 87% of muslims are not covered? Because only those countries which either refuse or cannot follow the visa background requirements are effected?
So? The ban is singling out Muslims. Just because it doesn't ban all Muslims doesn't mean it doesn't ban Muslims.
It's unlikely, yes. But given his disposition I can totally see how there could be reasons in the future. This guy is completely power mad already. And at one point he'll overdo it. I don't know why or how. There are psychological conditions that make people unfit for duty you know. He doesn't have to almost croak. Other ways are more realistic, though. Not even most Republicans can probably stand for policy made by Steve Bannon so they will at one point do what's necessary. My guess (as good as anyone's): after the Midterms IF the GOP can hold the House. Quickly dispose of him and let it blow over until the 2020 election.
I truly wish it was a Muslim ban but it is not. Not even remotely so pretending it is is just a falsehood.
Trump continues Obama policy of protecting the LGBT federal workers. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/polit...deral-workers0202PMVODtopLink&linkId=33961909
For now. Given his mercurial nature, I don't expect that to hold, and even if it did, I'm not going to accept it as any kind of largesse, because it should be non-negotiable. It would be like saying "I'm letting you keep your freedom of speech." He's not letting you do anything, he's holding it out in front of you to let you know that it can be taken. That is what an abuser does, and I won't allow any kind of Stockholm Syndrome set in by thinking this man may be something approaching a reasonable, kind human being who wants what's best for me, because he isn't, and he doesn't.
So how was the vetting working in those countries before? Were they giving people waivers from the vetting when it got too hard to confirm who they were or something...or did they say, "Sorry. We can't confirm you are who you say you are, so we can't take you in. Better luck next time."
Btw is there anyone who can write in his style? It's a mix of fourth grade and pure aggression. I have tried. I have failed. I want to mock him but I can't. His writing can be understood but my brain refuses to create such... 'sentences'. Maybe I should fire it. This guy is also the only reason why I go to Twitter now more than once every four months. Seems like all politics is made there now!
Boy was it funny to see senate minority leader Schumer bawling publicly in solidarity with the oppressed overseas aspiring migrants, but never before in response to, e g., dying US convicts wrongfully executed, servicemen dead in line of duty or children starved because republicans denied funding their milk money. Hilarious, but a risky gamble to hit the fake tears ploy so soon when there will probably be darker times ahead, poor chucky.
Having had lots of family members killed after they were turned away in similar circumstances will tend to do that. As for it not being a technical Muslim ban, only because they didn't think they could legally get away with that. It's what Trump wants and is working towards, so it's fair to use the term for this as the first part of that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...ys-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/
Sorry, the article did miss out a big chunk of what Sessions said during that hearing. Trump was within his rights to dismiss her after she made it clear her department could not follow his order, but she was also completely in the right to make that stand.
That isn't the Trump Spirit. The Trump spirit is I'm Superwoman. I'll take a crack at it. A successful crack. Because I've always been very good at takiing cracks. You won't get far in the business world without being ready to take some firstrate cracks. And I'm nothing if not a firstrate crack.
Yeah I said that. I don't see what the problem is you're having? I'm not saying she can't tell the President that what he's doing is wrong. She clearly has that right. In fact everyone serving in the executive branch should be willing to stand up and say no if they truly feel an action is wrong. Wrong to the point that they can not implement said policy. At that point usually they are asked for their resignation or they resign before they are asked to resign. Firing someone is actually rare at that level of government. What I am saying is those who are crying foul that she was fired and trying to compare this to Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre are wrong. It's not even close. Trump had no choice. He can not allow anyone underneath him in the executive branch to order a federal agency to not follow his policies. Same applies to all past and future Presidents as well.
Well Trump did have a choice, the choice of whether to accept the acting AG's counsel or to reject it. Given he took the second choice then yes he had to do what he did. This is significant because it's something that could backfire on Trump depending on how the EO does in the courts. It started off on shaky ground with mixed messaging from the White House on fundamental questions such as how it applies to those with active green cards and other residency visas. That's compounded by reports that it was poorly consulted, with some of the legal advice they sought saying it could not legally apply to those with permanent visas but Trump disagreed. If the courts back him, then this will be a Trump victory. If they don't then not only will that be a policy loss, but this firing will be seen as a major early indicator of the Trump admin being incompetent and seeking to replace those who could have helped them with yes men.
Then it could equally well be argued that Nixon "had no choice" but to dishonour himself by running through officials till he found someone lickspittle enough to do his bidding. Yates would say she had a duty to uphold the law and this measure was, in her view, illegal and so she refused, knowing that she'd be fired (as opposed to Going Along to Get Along). Richardson and Ruckelshaus would have made the same argument. The only difference is that they resigned, whereas Yates perhaps wished, for effect, to force Donald to do the inevitable. And more power to her.
