Breaking: Washington judge grants nationwide restraining order on Immigration ban

[djohn2oo8]

827668802770989058

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Home of the redskins, bullets, and 92% Democratic vote. The worst shithole in the entire US, even worse than dogtown Detroit

[djohn2oo8]

Home of the redskins, bullets, and 92% Democratic vote. The worst shithole in the entire US, even worse than dogtown Detroit

It was a judge appointed by Bush :lol

[UNT Eagles 2016]

It was a judge appointed by Bush :lol
nvm, WA state. Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver areas. Another liberal shithole.

[djohn2oo8]

827677352721215489

[clambake]

bob ferguson


i wonder where they'll hold the viewing.

[CosmicCowboy]

Anyone know what the legal reasoning was?

[clambake]

discrimination

[spurraider21]

Its a retraining order, not a final ruling (because there's irreparable harm), though they only grant the TRO if the judge rules there's a substantial chance for plaintiff to prevail on the merits.

Actual case should be interesting, as national security has typically been considered a compelling government interest that holds up even against strict scrutiny...

[CosmicCowboy]

discrimination

How does a non citizen not on US soil have US citizen rights?

[spurraider21]

How does a non citizen not on US soil have US citizen rights?
Judge ruled the families (who are in the US) had standing

[ElNono]

How does a non citizen not on US soil have US citizen rights?

What makes you think that's the basis for this case?

[spurraider21]

Also you don't have to be a citizen to have constitutional protections. The big one, the 14th amendment, is for all persons

[ElNono]

I think the basis is that there cannot be a religious test for immigration, at least from the excerpts we've heard so far. So the question would center on the actual constitutionality of the EO.

[CosmicCowboy]

Judge ruled the families (who are in the US) had standing

Interesting

seems like a pretty weak theory.

Constitutionally controlling our borders and deciding who can and can't come in is clearly up to the Federal Government .

[spurraider21]

I think the basis is that there cannot be a religious test for immigration, at least from the excerpts we've heard so far. So the question would center on the actual constitutionality of the EO.
That appears most likely. I wonder how they will balance the federal governments asserted national security interest.

[ElNono]

Also you don't have to be a citizen to have constitutional protections. The big one, the 14th amendment, is for all persons

Yup, plus the US has a long history of applying it's laws supra-nationally on non US citizens. IE, see: Kim Dotcom

[spurraider21]

Interesting

seems like a pretty weak theory.

Constitutionally controlling our borders and deciding who can and can't come in is clearly up to the Federal Government .
That's not the theory behind the merits of the case, it's just why the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Standing is usually a big issue in environmental suits too.

[Reck]

Also you don't have to be a citizen to have constitutional protections. The big one, the 14th amendment, is for all persons


Interesting

seems like a pretty weak theory.

Constitutionally controlling our borders and deciding who can and can't come in is clearly up to the Federal Government .

[CosmicCowboy]

Also you don't have to be a citizen to have constitutional protections. The big one, the 14th amendment, is for all persons

hmmm...funny the 14th specifically says those born in the USA.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not saying I totally agree with how it was implemented but the executive clearly has jurisdiction on how VISA's to enter the US are issued.

[spurraider21]

hmmm...funny the 14th specifically says those born in the USA.
That's referring to the fact that all people born here are automatically citizens. Read past that one clause tbh...

[Reck]

Up to 100,000 people got their visas revoked without warning. :wow

:lol Trump the imponpetent faggot.
:lol breaks and violates constitutional laws in one week.

[ElNono]

That appears most likely. I wonder how they will balance the federal governments asserted national security interest.

Government can actually plead natsec directly, but judges can overrule (although the vast majority of the time, especially in cases of surveillance, they do defer to the government).

The administration will probably look to find an amicable court to certify the constitutionality of the EO, thus likely creating colliding rulings, and ignore the restraining order, while it escalates the case.

The case itself centers both on campaign and public statements to the effect of this being a religion-based ban. A hearsay defense might just be enough to make it go away, although the probative value seems to outweight prejudice in this case.

[DD]

Up to 100,000 people got their visas revoked without warning.

I feel safer already tbh

[DarrinS]

Just send them all to sanctuary cities.

[ElNono]

Not saying I totally agree with how it was implemented but the executive clearly has jurisdiction on how VISA's to enter the US are issued.

They have jurisdiction, but always within the framework of the Constitution. A religious (or racial) ban is unconstitutional. This case centers on this being a not-so-subtle religion-based ban.

The case is just starting, tbh, there's no verdict yet as to the validity of the claim. The only thing established is that the State does have standing, and that's likely to prevail according to THIS judge.

[CosmicCowboy]

Up to 100,000 people got their visas revoked without warning. :wow

:lol Trump the imponpetent faggot.
:lol breaks and violates constitutional laws in one week.

It was more like 60,000 and it's not clear at this point any constitutional law was violated.

[CosmicCowboy]

They have jurisdiction, but always within the framework of the Constitution. A religious (or racial) ban is unconstitutional. This case centers on this being a not-so-subtle religion-based ban.

The case is just starting, tbh, there's no verdict yet as to the validity of the claim. The only thing established is that the State does have standing, and that's likely to prevail according to THIS judge.

Thank you. I agree with your assessment but proving it's a religious ban will be a big hurdle.

[Reck]

It was more like 60,000 and it's not clear at this point any constitutional law was violated.

Oh so that makes it much better. :lol

And of course it did. If you have a working Visa and it gets revoked for no reason, then something is not right.

So your visa gets revoked because....?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh so that makes it much better. :lol

And of course it did. If you have a working Visa and it gets revoked for no reason, then something is not right.

So your visa gets revoked because....?

Any number of reasons and after a vigorous review in most cases will probably be reinstated.

Or not. We don't "owe" entry to the US to anyone.

[Reck]

Any number of reasons and after a vigorous review in most cases will probably be reinstated.

Or not. We don't "owe" entry to the US to anyone.

And what about the people already in the US? They get to be held hostage by our own government? If they get out, they cant come in.

Again, why?

[ElNono]

Any number of reasons and after a vigorous review in most cases will probably be reinstated.

Or not. We don't "owe" entry to the US to anyone.

The problem is that such 'review' can be irreparably damaging to a number of companies, persons, etc. It's not that the government doesn't have the power of such changes of policies, it's that they could be damaging regardless, especially when they're unannounced and impossible to plan for. So the government might be within it's right, but that doesn't mean it's order is not damaging, and will have to respond for that damage. After all, it was the same government (regardless of the change of administration) that made assurances, through visa papers (which have expiration dates, and certain rules for revocation), that those persons were entitled entry into the US.

In other words, a lot of this could've been avoided if handled differently: Should the government would've announced a review of all visas starting at a certain point, or not denying entry while such review process was ongoing, or decided to stop issuing visas until that process was complete, etc... this probably would look a lot different now.

[spurraider21]

Government can actually plead natsec directly, but judges can overrule (although the vast majority of the time, especially in cases of surveillance, they do defer to the government).

The administration will probably look to find an amicable court to certify the constitutionality of the EO, thus likely creating colliding rulings, and ignore the restraining order, while it escalates the case.

The case itself centers both on campaign and public statements to the effect of this being a religion-based ban. A hearsay defense might just be enough to make it go away, although the probative value seems to outweight prejudice in this case.not a chance tbh... regardless of it being prejudicial. tons of ways to get around hearsay hurdles in this scenario.

- party admission
- state of mind (to show intent)
- statement of public office
- residual exception (trustworthy + evidence of material fact + more probative than other evidence available)... fed rules of evidence 807

[ElNono]

not a chance tbh... regardless of it being prejudicial. tons of ways to get around hearsay hurdles in this scenario.

- party admission
- state of mind (intent)
- statement of public office
- residual exception (trustworthy + evidence of material fact + more probative than other evidence available)

Yeah, that's why I was saying that the Hearsay rule will likely not apply here. Then again, you don't have a direct quote from the POTUS, in his capacity of POTUS, making the claim.
I haven't kept up, but I don't think Giuliani has an official government position at this time?

[Trill Clinton]

https://media.giphy.com/media/ON8H7t9WarQRi/giphy.gif

[CosmicCowboy]

The problem is that such 'review' can be irreparably damaging to a number of companies, persons, etc. It's not that the government doesn't have the power of such changes of policies, it's that they could be damaging regardless, especially when they're unannounced and impossible to plan for. So the government might be within it's right, but that doesn't mean it's order is not damaging, and will have to respond for that damage. After all, it was the same government (regardless of the change of administration) that made assurances, through visa papers (which have expiration dates, and certain rules for revocation), that those persons were entitled entry into the US.

In other words, a lot of this could've been avoided if handled differently: Should the government would've announced a review of all visas starting at a certain point, or not denying entry while such review process was ongoing, or decided to stop issuing visas until that process was complete, etc... this probably would look a lot different now.

I agree.

[spurraider21]

Yeah, that's why I was saying that the Hearsay rule will likely not apply here. Then again, you don't have a direct quote from the POTUS, in his capacity of POTUS, making the claim.
I haven't kept up, but I don't think Giuliani has an official government position at this time?hm, true, hadn't considered that dynamic. he has referred to it as a "ban" recently... could end up depending on whether SCOTUS is willing to make a disparate impact analysis

[spurraider21]

The problem is that such 'review' can be irreparably damaging to a number of companies, persons, etc. It's not that the government doesn't have the power of such changes of policies, it's that they could be damaging regardless, especially when they're unannounced and impossible to plan for. So the government might be within it's right, but that doesn't mean it's order is not damaging, and will have to respond for that damage. After all, it was the same government (regardless of the change of administration) that made assurances, through visa papers (which have expiration dates, and certain rules for revocation), that those persons were entitled entry into the US.

In other words, a lot of this could've been avoided if handled differently: Should the government would've announced a review of all visas starting at a certain point, or not denying entry while such review process was ongoing, or decided to stop issuing visas until that process was complete, etc... this probably would look a lot different now.how could you be such an idiot, tbh..

826060143825666051

[ElNono]

hm, true, hadn't considered that dynamic. he has referred to it as a "ban" recently... could end up depending on whether SCOTUS is willing to make a disparate impact analysis

Correct. A "ban" itself wouldn't be unconstitutional, and even unintentional disparate impact would be ok. But if the government becomes unable to present something akin to the business necessity defense (under natsec), then it will be struck down.

That said, there's a lot of lines to cross in this particular case, and if effectively a review is done in 90 days, then it will likely be over before a case actually starts (government could still be liable for damages though).

[ElNono]

how could you be such an idiot, tbh..

826060143825666051

Well, that seems to tell me more about the quality of the upcoming review than about the "bad hombres" out there.

[spurraider21]

Correct. A "ban" itself wouldn't be unconstitutional, and even unintentional disparate impact would be ok. But if the government becomes unable to present something akin to the business necessity defense (under natsec), then it will be struck down.yep


That said, there's a lot of lines to cross in this particular case, and if effectively a review is done in 90 days, then it will likely be over before a case actually starts (government could still be liable for damages though).yeah but what would the remedy even be at that point?

[ElNono]

yeah but what would the remedy even be at that point?

I suppose it depends on the strength or rationale of the new vetting process. I suspect companies could claim monetary damages under civil if the government is unable to prove why their star employee is a threat to natsec because he was born in Iran and had his H1B revoked, or a business opportunity was lost due to the temporary ban.

Then again, we don't even know what the new policy is going to look like in 90 days, so we'll know more by then. I'm sure lawsuits will be lining up if it's anything but extremely convincing.

[Thread]

Trump should sign a fresh EO.

[Thread]

Does the part where he stops immigration from the 7 countries stand?
Does the part where he stops immigration from Syria stand?

[ElNono]

Does the part where he stops immigration from the 7 countries stand?
Does the part where he stops immigration from Syria stand?

I don't know about right at this moment, but if I were a betting man, I would say he'll get away with it in due time.

[Thread]

I don't know about right at this moment, but if I were a betting man, I would say he'll get away with it in due time.

Thank Christ.

[Thread]

& here is a prime example of the delayed betrayal of (Bush). (Dems) never, ever make this mistake. They set someone somewhere with a Leftist bent and that fucker stays Left. You will not pass. Tonite, because of Bush we got fucked by a sleeper cell activated at the opportune moment.

Same with Bush's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Roberts. He appoints him, but, only AFTER he tried to shove some other Justice thru that was leaning Left. Only because conservatives demanded he make another choice did we get Roberts who ended up fucking us anyways on the Obamacare ruling.

[ElNono]

& here is a prime example of the delayed betrayal of (Bush). (Dems) never, ever make this mistake. They set someone somewhere with a Leftist bent and that fucker stays Left. You will not pass. Tonite, because of Bush we got fucked by a sleeper cell activated at the opportune moment.

Same with Bush's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Roberts. He appoints him, but, only AFTER he tried to shove some other Justice thru that was leaning Left. Only because conservatives demanded he make another choice did we get Roberts who ended up fucking us anyways on the Obamacare ruling.

There's two sides to every coin, Culbear... Donny fucked up on this one (I'm not even pinning it on him, he probably delegated this shit to somebody and they fucked up). But in the end, they'll get what they want and they'll get it right.

It's not like they care about perception anyways.

[Thread]

There's two sides to every coin, Culbear... Donny fucked up on this one (I'm not even pinning it on him, he probably delegated this shit to somebody and they fucked up). But in the end, they'll get what they want and they'll get it right.

It's not like they care about perception anyways.

That's MSM talking points, El.

[ElNono]

That's MSM talking points, El.

I'm talking execution, just my opinion Cul... I don't claim to be right. This didn't need to be this messy, IMO.

[ElNono]

Here's the actual ruling:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-070d-d2c9-a55a-b72da1d30001

What it lays out is actually not a religion-based case, as reported, but the fact that States have standing to sue due to the fact that immigration orders affect the state resident's areas of employment, education, business, etc, which in turns affect the state coffers (through taxing via income, consumption, etc). This is notable in that it's exactly the same rationale by which Barry's immigration EOs when it come to dreamers, etc were confronted in court. Whereas in the Barry case the claim was that illegal/undocumented immigrants were going to impose an economic burden for the States, in this case the argument centers in that the loss of legal immigrants affect the State's economy in a negative way (among other things).

I'm sure the administration is going to request an immediate stay of the order, and resume the ban, but it will be interesting to see on how this plays out in court. The obvious difference is that in this case there's a case to be made about national security implications, but on the other hand, the fact that this was a general ban could also empower the States if they can prove the actual economic harm.

[Wild Cobra]

Home of the redskins, bullets, and 92% Democratic vote. The worst shithole in the entire US, even worse than dogtown Detroit

The Redskins are not in the state of Washington.

WA state attorney...

Los of power for his position!

Something isn't right.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

The Redskins are not in the state of Washington.

WA state attorney...

Los of power for his position!

Something isn't right.

I correct myself. Thread title said Washington, I assumed D.C. not Wa. State.

[boutons_deux]

Over 60,000 Visas Revoked Since Trump’s Travel Ban Took Effect
http://www.nationalmemo.com/visas-revoked-travel-ban/

This clearly has reduced the huge number of foreign terrorists that have been murdering 1000s of Americans, in America, for years.

[boutons_deux]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/359485/story_image/americabanned915.png?1485834472

[boutons_deux]

On Trial: Why Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Win Over Seattle Judge’s Nationwide Order
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

[Raven]

if you thought this was ever going through, i don't know what to tell you tbh... trump knew it btw

[djohn2oo8]

Over 60,000 Visas Revoked Since Trump’s Travel Ban Took Effect
http://www.nationalmemo.com/visas-revoked-travel-ban/

This clearly has reduced the huge number of foreign terrorists that have been murdering 1000s of Americans, in America, for years.




They are now valid again. LMAO Trump

The State Department has reversed the visa cancellations for foreigners, the Associated Press reported Saturday. "Those individuals with visas that were not physically cancelled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid," a State spokesperson said.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security confirmed Saturday that the department has suspended "any and all" actions ordered by Trump that are affected by judge's ruling.

"In accordance with the judge's ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," Gillian Christenson said.

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao trump meltdown on Twitter

[boutons_deux]

I just saw three Mooslims at North Star Mall wearing explosive suicide vests, they came straight from the airport.

[Thread]

I just saw three Mooslims at North Star Mall wearing explosive suicide vests, they came straight from the airport.

That's the mudslimes for ya.

[DMC]

I think the basis is that there cannot be a religious test for immigration, at least from the excerpts we've heard so far. So the question would center on the actual constitutionality of the EO.

At some point the tenets of the belief have to come into question so that not all beliefs fall under the protections of religion. Else I can simply have a terrorist group that openly espouses death to the US and say it's our religious belief so you cannot discriminate based on it. I think we certainly can discriminate based on your lifetime of brainwashing to the idea that a caliphate needs to arise and infidels must die, that someone should be killed if they draw a depiction of your god. Otherwise we just wait for what we know they are going to do to occur and react on a case by case basis.

I'm ok with treating all religions the same way though. They should put all the religious folks on a big island and let them see who's god is strongest.

[boutons_deux]

Inside the White House-Cabinet battle over Trump’s immigration order

the man charged with implementing the order, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, had a plan. He would issue a waiver for lawful permanent residents, a.k.a. green-card holders, from the seven majority-Muslim countries whose citizens had been banned from entering the United States.

White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon wanted to stop Kelly in his tracks. Bannon paid a personal and unscheduled visit to Kelly’s Department of Homeland Security office to deliver an order:

Don’t issue the waiver.

Kelly, according to two administration officials familiar with the confrontation, refused to comply with Bannon’s instruction.

That was the beginning of a weekend of negotiations among senior Trump administration staffers that led, on Sunday, to a decision by Trump to temporarily freeze the issuance of executive orders.

The confrontation between Bannon and Kelly pitted a political operator against a military disciplinarian.

Respectfully but firmly, the

retired general and longtime Marine told Bannon that despite his high position in the White House and close relationship with Trump, the former Breitbart chief was not in Kelly’s chain of command,

two administration officials said.

If the president wanted Kelly to back off from issuing the waiver,

Kelly would have to hear it from the president directly,

he told Bannon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?utm_term=.6fcee66de199&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

Sounds like Trash fucked up and appointed some somewhat decent citizens compared to the lawless, Leninists Bannon and Miller.

My guess is that Kelly will get fed up and resign, or told to resign, and refused. Others may follow him out, as Bannon gets the sycophantic, dickless, lawless Cabinet and agency heads he needs to pull of his coup.

[djohn2oo8]

Repugs would rather kick 20 million people from Healthcare coverage, which would kill more people than these supposed horrible Muslim terrorists.

[Thread]

Repugs would rather kick 20 million people from Healthcare coverage, which would kill more people than these supposed horrible Muslim terrorists.

Absolutely. How the fuck is it right to give it free to 20 million people by making it impossible for 20 million other people so that the latter 20 million pay for the former 20 million, dj? And if the latter 20 million won't pay they'll be monetarily penalized. Fuck that shit. It's fucking insane.

[ElNono]

At some point the tenets of the belief have to come into question so that not all beliefs fall under the protections of religion. Else I can simply have a terrorist group that openly espouses death to the US and say it's our religious belief so you cannot discriminate based on it. I think we certainly can discriminate based on your lifetime of brainwashing to the idea that a caliphate needs to arise and infidels must die, that someone should be killed if they draw a depiction of your god. Otherwise we just wait for what we know they are going to do to occur and react on a case by case basis.

I'm ok with treating all religions the same way though. They should put all the religious folks on a big island and let them see who's god is strongest.

You can't prosecute crimes of thought, it's part of free speech. You can, however, run intelligence on them as prospective terrorists and catch them red handed whenever they attempt to act on those thoughts. That approach has served us well historically, statistically speaking.

[DMC]

You can't prosecute crimes of thought, it's part of free speech. You can, however, run intelligence on them as prospective terrorists and catch them red handed whenever they attempt to act on those thoughts. That approach has served us well historically, statistically speaking.

Odd then that you can be arrested for conspiring to commit murder. Conspiring is no more than expressed thought.

[Thread]

I just saw some slope doctor on MSNBC questioning the mental health of Trump. They ain't sated by overturning that EO. Uh, uh. They're going for it, Trumps removal by hook, or, by crook.

This is going to be something else again.

[spurraider21]

Odd then that you can be arrested for conspiring to commit murder. Conspiring is no more than expressed thought.with the intent to carry out that action. intent is huge in criminal law, as clinton knows well

[spurraider21]

Here's the actual ruling:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-070d-d2c9-a55a-b72da1d30001

What it lays out is actually not a religion-based case, as reported, but the fact that States have standing to sue due to the fact that immigration orders affect the state resident's areas of employment, education, business, etc, which in turns affect the state coffers (through taxing via income, consumption, etc). This is notable in that it's exactly the same rationale by which Barry's immigration EOs when it come to dreamers, etc were confronted in court. Whereas in the Barry case the claim was that illegal/undocumented immigrants were going to impose an economic burden for the States, in this case the argument centers in that the loss of legal immigrants affect the State's economy in a negative way (among other things).

I'm sure the administration is going to request an immediate stay of the order, and resume the ban, but it will be interesting to see on how this plays out in court. The obvious difference is that in this case there's a case to be made about national security implications, but on the other hand, the fact that this was a general ban could also empower the States if they can prove the actual economic harm.court didn't really address how they found the plaintiff's have shown to be likely to succeed. he just states that they met that element, but doesn't dive into it, really. he does analyze the irreparable harm for a bit, but the likeliness to succeed is much more intriguing to just leave blank

[ducks]

Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump – Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump

Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?


USA USA USA

[Thread]

USA USA USA

USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA.........

[Clipper Nation]

& here is a prime example of the delayed betrayal of (Bush). (Dems) never, ever make this mistake. They set someone somewhere with a Leftist bent and that fucker stays Left. You will not pass. Tonite, because of Bush we got fucked by a sleeper cell activated at the opportune moment.

Same with Bush's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Roberts. He appoints him, but, only AFTER he tried to shove some other Justice thru that was leaning Left. Only because conservatives demanded he make another choice did we get Roberts who ended up fucking us anyways on the Obamacare ruling.
Bush is a globalist, not a conservative. He's as leftist as any Democrat.

[Thread]

Bush is a globalist, not a conservative. He's as leftist as any Democrat.

Yep. Fooled me a thousand times. "Was blind. But now I see."

& we're not going to get any relief out of the 9th Circuit. It will have to go to the SC.

[boutons_deux]

Trash's headless DoJ is appealing the stay.

[DMC]

with the intent to carry out that action. intent is huge in criminal law, as clinton knows well

From a legal standpoint sure, but I am not suggesting arresting anyone. I am suggesting considering that their "religion" is akin to being part of a hate group. You can belong to the KKK and not have committed a crime.

[spurraider21]

From a legal standpoint sure, but I am not suggesting arresting anyone. I am suggesting considering that their "religion" is akin to being part of a hate group. You can belong to the KKK and not have committed a crime.yes which is why its not illegal to belong to the KKK... it can also be said that people who join the KKK buy into their hate wholesale, where the same cant be said for people who happen to be brought up muslim

[ElNono]

So the administration, through the DOJ, requested an emergency motion to stay the injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/05/stay.motion.pdf

And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction until it obtains more information from the parties. So, for now, no ban.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the administration, through the DOJ, requested an emergency motion to stay the injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/05/stay.motion.pdf

And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction until it obtains more information from the parties. So, for now, no ban.

I imagine his talking shit to the lower bench publicly does not help his cause.

[Clipper Nation]

What a surprise - the activist judge who halted the refugee pause does pro bono work for refugees:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaecsQhSqKs

Can you say, conflict of interest?

[Reck]

What a surprise - the activist judge who halted the refugee pause does pro bono work for refugees:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaecsQhSqKs

Can you say, conflict of interest?

Own this motherfucker CN. Dude is a cuckservative appointed by Bush.

[Clipper Nation]

Own this motherfucker CN. Dude is a cuckservative appointed by Bush.
As I already pointed out:


Bush is a globalist, not a conservative. He's as leftist as any Democrat.

It makes sense that the judges Dubya appointed were huge globalist cucks too.

[djohn2oo8]

Own this motherfucker CN. Dude is a cuckservative appointed by Bush.

You know he can't stay on topic.

[Thread]

You know he can't stay on topic.

BS. He's saying the tree was rotten when we planted the damn thing. Any fruit borne from it will obviously be just as compromised.

You know this, dj. You're being obtuse because you got us by the short hairs. It's cheap & unseemly of you.

[djohn2oo8]

BS. He's saying the tree was rotten when we planted the damn thing. Any fruit borne from it will obviously be just as compromised.

You know this, dj. You're being obtuse because you got us by the short hairs. It's cheap & unseemly of you.

A Republican judge appointed by a Republican president. Period.

[Thread]

A Republican judge appointed by a Republican president. Period.

Bush was & is a Globalist. He's got his, his family is set for the next century. It was his turn after Clinton, then Clinton would have her turn after Bush, but, Hussein Obama cut in line. "Fine, I'll wait till after you." I'm telling you nothing you don't already know.

[djohn2oo8]

Bush was & is a Globalist. He's got his, his family is set for the next century. It was his turn after Clinton, then Clinton would have her turn after Bush, but, Hussein Obama cut in line. "Fine, I'll wait till after you." I'm telling you nothing you don't already know.

Bush named two Republicans to the Supreme Court. Two. Don't tell me he wasn't a conservative. CN panties are wet because he can't blame a liberal for striking down Trump :lol

[Thread]

Bush named two Republicans to the Supreme Court. Two. Don't tell me he wasn't a conservative. CN panties are wet because he can't blame a liberal for striking down Trump :lol

We got ThomasPERIOD I wouldn't trust the others as far as I could throw them. (You) never make a mistake. And obviously & sadly neither do we.

[Spurminator]

What a surprise - the activist judge who halted the refugee pause does pro bono work for refugees:

[video=youtube;GaecsQhSqKs]Can you say, conflict of interest?

:lol Conflict of interest how? He's afraid he might lose business he's not paid for?

[z0sa]

My laman's knowledge of the current INA expressly delegates to the XO from congress the powers of stopping entry of literally any group or clasw of aliens. While it may be ruled unconstitutional, Trumps EO is following todays letter of law as established legally by a separate power. Additionally, the nations at-war emergency status further grants legally otherwise illegal extraordinary powers to the CiC.

Strictly speaking, Trump did not in any way violate any law or precedent prior to the decisions since handed down by the judiciary.

[Spurminator]

I suppose a judge can't oversee a criminal trial for someone who beat up a homeless person if said judge also volunteered at a soup kitchen?

[Clipper Nation]

Bush named two Republicans to the Supreme Court. Two. Don't tell me he wasn't a conservative. CN panties are wet because he can't blame a liberal for striking down Trump :lol
You do realize that Republican isn't the same thing as conservative, right? Bush and his cronies are Republicans, but they aren't conservative. Dale is right, they're globalist through and through, just like the Dems.

[djohn2oo8]

You do realize that Republican isn't the same thing as conservative, right? Bush and his cronies are Republicans, but they aren't conservative. Dale is right, they're globalist through and through, just like the Dems.

Conservatives voted for Bush. PLENTY of them so you have zero point.

[Clipper Nation]

Conservatives voted for Bush. PLENTY of them so you have zero point.
So? Doesn't change the fact that Dubya and his cronies' actions have been fundamentally non-conservative. Especially on immigration.

Liberals kept voting Robert Byrd into office. Does that mean all liberals are racists who support the KKK?

[boutons_deux]

The fatal flaw in Trump’s legal defense of his Muslim ban

To put it another way, to win their case in Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs had to convince the Court to read scope of religious liberty under RFRA to be much more expansive than any Supreme Court decision in American history had ever understood it to be under the First Amendment. And that’s exactly what the Court did in Hobby Lobby.

A 2000 amendment to RFRA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court, was “an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law.”

Thus, thanks to Hobby Lobby, prior First Amendment decisions are completely irrelevant to the question of whether a particular government action violates RFRA.

This interpretation of that 2000 amendment has clear implications for Trump’s Muslim ban.

Even if Mandel does prohibit courts from examining Trump’s true motive for issuing the Muslim ban when that ban is challenged under the First Amendment,

Mandel does not prevent courts from searching for Trump’s true motive in a RFRA suit.

Hobby Lobby effects “a complete separation” between RFRA and the First Amendment, and that complete separation includes Mandel.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-fatal-flaw-in-trumps-legal-defense-of-his-muslim-ban-4943056c1958#.xejfacobj

[ElNono]

What a surprise - the activist judge who halted the refugee pause does pro bono work for refugees:

Can you say, conflict of interest?

I really can't, but I also don't think his ruling was solid. Attacking the person, might make people feel fluffy inside, but does nothing for the case itself.

There's actual good reasons to criticize his ruling that has nothing to do with what he does on his own time, tbh.

[ElNono]

You do realize that Republican isn't the same thing as conservative, right? Bush and his cronies are Republicans, but they aren't conservative. Dale is right, they're globalist through and through, just like the Dems.

Globalism is free-market taken to the extreme. It'd be difficult (but convenient) to argue conservatives haven't been the bastion of that. You would know, being a (former?) libertarian...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Globalism is free-market taken to the extreme. It'd be difficult (but convenient) to argue conservatives haven't been the bastion of that. You would know, being a (former?) libertarian...

He strikes me as disestablishmentarian moreso than anything else. Nihilist.

[ElNono]

He strikes me as disestablishmentarian moreso than anything else. Nihilist.

I don't think it has anything to do with one poster, but the fact that Trump is really outside the mold of your typical conservative (yes, conservative, not Republican).

Ultimately, in my personal opinion, that's what's interesting about that discussion, not whether 'fans' feel validated by his win (much like progressives of all stripes felt validated by Barry's win, even though he was in many ways nothing like a progressive).

When it comes to economic discussion, there's always been a lot of wedges that you could clearly also break down by party colors: capitalism vs socialism, globalism vs protectionism, free-market vs subsidies, etc.

You might not like Trump's election, and that's fair, but he does shake up some of those lines (at least in theory, we'll see in practice), and I don't think that's particularly bad. Much like I thought the ACA was shit, but because it happened, it rattled what the shitty status quo was, so in that sense, it was utilitarian.

[Thread]

Much like I thought the ACA was shit, but because it happened, it rattled what the shitty status quo was, so in that sense, it was utilitarian.

Taking money from young and healthy Americans and handing it to older and unhealthy Americans is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. The fuckin' nerve. Then the deductible is so outrageous for the young and healthy Americans they can never use the gd thing. And if they don't pay the gov't penalizes them monetarily. It's fucking insane.

[ElNono]

Taking money from young and healthy Americans and handing it to older and unhealthy Americans is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. The fuckin' nerve. Then the deductible is so outrageous for the young and healthy Americans they can never use the gd thing. And if they don't pay the gov't penalizes them monetarily. It's fucking insane.

That's the entire purpose of taxes, and we've done that since, well, we were born as a nation. Now we can discuss whether taxing is high or low or somewhere in between, and whether the tax dollars are 'redistributed' correctly (which is a very personal thing), but there's nothing insane about it, it's actually an integral part of how economies work.

Pre-ACA, we were redistributing the wealth too, by paying hospitals more for unpaid bills with the same tax dollars, because people who needed the healthcare but had no access to insurance, went bankrupt.

So it was a broken system, and it was replaced with a broken system too, but what I think was utilitarian about it is that shook an area that was bad and seemingly untouchable. Now, despite the fact that ACA is shit, we can do worse. But we could also do better, so at least there's that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think it has anything to do with one poster, but the fact that Trump is really outside the mold of your typical conservative (yes, conservative, not Republican).

Ultimately, in my personal opinion, that's what's interesting about that discussion, not whether 'fans' feel validated by his win (much like progressives of all stripes felt validated by Barry's win, even though he was in many ways nothing like a progressive).

When it comes to economic discussion, there's always been a lot of wedges that you could clearly also break down by party colors: capitalism vs socialism, globalism vs protectionism, free-market vs subsidies, etc.

You might not like Trump's election, and that's fair, but he does shake up some of those lines (at least in theory, we'll see in practice), and I don't think that's particularly bad. Much like I thought the ACA was shit, but because it happened, it rattled what the shitty status quo was, so in that sense, it was utilitarian.

shaking up the status quo is not conservative. conservative seeks to keep the status quo. unfortunately conservative in the US has become white identity politics and oligarchy.

[Will Hunting]

Taking money from young and healthy Americans and handing it to older and unhealthy Americans is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. The fuckin' nerve. Then the deductible is so outrageous for the young and healthy Americans they can never use the gd thing. And if they don't pay the gov't penalizes them monetarily. It's fucking insane.
Medicare is also wealth redistribution seeing that the baby boomers didn't pay into it anywhere near as much as they'll use it, and the difference is going to be subsidized by millennials.

If you want to talk about what in our healthcare system is outrageous, it's the fact we let private insurance companies that add absolutely no value scrape money off the top as an unnecessary middle man.

[ElNono]

shaking up the status quo is not conservative. conservative seeks to keep the status quo. unfortunately conservative in the US has become white identity politics and oligarchy.

I agree with that assertion for the most part, but it really depends on what is the status quo. For example, ACA is the status quo right now, and I'm pretty sure with a 'typical' conservative (Cruz, Rubio, etc) it would've rolled it back to the previous badly broken system. With Trump? I don't know, honestly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree with that assertion for the most part, but it really depends on what is the status quo. For example, ACA is the status quo right now, and I'm pretty sure with a 'typical' conservative (Cruz, Rubio, etc) it would've been rolled back to the previous badly broken system. With Trump? I don't know, honestly.

I don't think Trump is liberal or conservative. I think he is closer to anarcho libertarian than anything else. Bannon doubly so.

Conservatism as you relate it lacks principle and becomes partisan reactionism. I agree with that too. Unfortunately the dems do the same thing.

[boutons_deux]

Nearly 100 Companies File Brief Opposing Travel Ban

Major companies have rushed to back a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's executive order suspending the refugee program and barring visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries after a federal court temporarily blocked the White House order.

In a brief filed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, nearly 100 companies —including Facebook, Apple and Microsoft — from the technology sector and other industries supported the lawsuit filed by Washington state and Minnesota.

The companies argue that Trump's order is "inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies."

"It hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on businesses;

makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international market-place.; and

gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations — and hire new employees — outside the United States," the legal counsel for the companies wrote in the brief.

The companies also assert that Trump's order violates the U.S. Constitution and immigration law by discriminating against individuals based on their nationality.

Among the companies who signed the brief were Airbnb, Apple, Chobani, Dropbox, eBay, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Intel, Lyft, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflox, PayPal, Salesforce, Spotify, and Uber.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/companies-oppose-trump-travel-ban-court

[Reck]

Paypal? Isn't that faggot Theil the owner of that company?

[Clipper Nation]

Globalism is free-market taken to the extreme. It'd be difficult (but convenient) to argue conservatives haven't been the bastion of that. You would know, being a (former?) libertarian...
Globalism is fundamentally socialist. It's all about dragging down strong nations to artificially prop up weak ones. Peak globalism would be a one world government where everyone except the elites is equally poor. Basically your typical third-world socialist state stretched out all over the globe.

I can see where people might get the impression that globalism is capitalist, since typically capitalist endeavors like trade are used to advance the cause. But the underlying principles are anti-free-market. There's a reason why prominent leftists like Soros are among the biggest cheerleaders for globalism.

[Thread]

Globalism is fundamentally socialist. It's all about dragging down strong nations to artificially prop up weak ones. Peak globalism would be a one world government where everyone except the elites is equally poor. Basically your typical third-world socialist state stretched out all over the globe.

I can see where people might get the impression that globalism is capitalist, since typically capitalist endeavors like trade are used to advance the cause. But the underlying principles are anti-free-market. There's a reason why prominent leftists like Soros are among the biggest cheerleaders for globalism.


CN

[Thread]

[[[LiberalsRcrybabies
10:31 AM MST (http://washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?outputType=comment&commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/3d91c5cd-359c-41bd-bf4b-81dab9c8cf93)

Where are all the liberals who claim that if only one life is saved, more gun control laws are all worth it. So if one American life is saved by prohibiting potential terrorists into this country, the ban is worth it too. Right?]]]

[clambake]

[[[LiberalsRcrybabies
10:31 AM MST (http://washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?outputType=comment&commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/3d91c5cd-359c-41bd-bf4b-81dab9c8cf93)

Where are all the liberals who claim that if only one life is saved, more gun control laws are all worth it. So if one American life is saved by prohibiting potential terrorists into this country, the ban is worth it too. Right?]]]

"well, he shoulda armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend"

[spurraider21]

[[[LiberalsRcrybabies
10:31 AM MST (http://washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?outputType=comment&commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/3d91c5cd-359c-41bd-bf4b-81dab9c8cf93)

Where are all the liberals who claim that if only one life is saved, more gun control laws are all worth it. So if one American life is saved by prohibiting potential terrorists into this country, the ban is worth it too. Right?]]]





For that to make sense, you'd have to show that terrorists/refugees from those countries have cost American lives. So far it's just hot air

[Blake]

Globalism is fundamentally socialist. It's all about dragging down strong nations to artificially prop up weak ones. Peak globalism would be a one world government where everyone except the elites is equally poor. Basically your typical third-world socialist state stretched out all over the globe.


So weak nations are propped up from super poor to just regular poor. Thanks for clarifying, professor.

US elitism playing world police imposing our will on weaker nations is a very republican thing to do tbh

[Thread]

For that to make sense, you'd have to show that terrorists/refugees from those countries have cost American lives. So far it's just hot air

I know, what you want is an example, a gaggle of Americans slaughtered en masse= "Oh, God, how could this happen? Oh, my God, let's hurry, put the flags at half mast, beat our chests, wail our hearts out, have a large number of Town Hall events utilizing CNN personnel, muddy any standing water we can locate. Oh, God. And we must fight this scourge by letting more of diversity into our country.........oh, yeah, Oh, God."

[spurraider21]

I know, what you want is an example, a gaggle of Americans slaughtered en masse= "Oh, God, how could this happen? Oh, my God, let's hurry, put the flags at half mast, beat our chests, wail our hearts out, have a large number of Town Hall events utilizing CNN personnel, muddy any standing water we can locate. Oh, God. And we must fight this scourge by letting more of diversity into our country.........oh, yeah, Oh, God."
I just prefer a credible threat to a boogeyman if you're trying to sell the ban.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I just prefer a credible threat to a boogeyman if you're trying to sell the ban.


Abdul Razak Ali Artan

[spurraider21]

Abdul Razak Ali Artan
What pizzeria does he manage?

[Thread]

What pizzeria does he manage?

The one where the eternal question: "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?" is answered.

[pgardn]

Globalism is fundamentally socialist. It's all about dragging down strong nations to artificially prop up weak ones. Peak globalism would be a one world government where everyone except the elites is equally poor. Basically your typical third-world socialist state stretched out all over the globe.

I can see where people might get the impression that globalism is capitalist, since typically capitalist endeavors like trade are used to advance the cause. But the underlying principles are anti-free-market. There's a reason why prominent leftists like Soros are among the biggest cheerleaders for globalism.

Your definition of globalism is wacked. Globalization could easily be used to explain why the US is the richest country in the world. It could also be used to explain wealth disparity.

What is globalism?

[Thread]

Your definition of globalism is wacked. Globalization could easily be used to explain why the US is the richest country in the world. It could also be used to explain wealth disparity.

What is globalism?

Same as communism:::Somebody who has nothing and wants to share it.

[CosmicCowboy]

The legal arguments certainly aren't in the judges favor. As liberal as the 9th circuit is I don't see them upholding the ruling.

[Thread]

The legal arguments certainly aren't in the judges favor. As liberal as the 9th circuit is I don't see them upholding the ruling.

ELE wager, CC?

[CosmicCowboy]

ELE wager, CC?

No way I'd bet on the 9th. They have a history of unconstitutional decisions. The Supreme Court overturns them more than any other circuit court.

[Thread]

No way I'd bet on the 9th. They have a history of unconstitutional decisions. The Supreme Court overturns them more than any other circuit court.

Agreed. Trump will have to go to the SC in order to prevail.

[spurraider21]

Gotta wait for Gorsuch

[Thread]

Gotta wait for Gorsuch

Not necessarily, I would not be surprised if he turned two of those on the left. He's got a case.

[vy65]

From a legal standpoint sure, but I am not suggesting arresting anyone. I am suggesting considering that their "religion" is akin to being part of a hate group. You can belong to the KKK and not have committed a crime.

Haven't reviewed every state's law, but I'm willing to bet all of them have the "one overt act" requirement for criminal conspiracy.

[spurraider21]

Not necessarily, I would not be surprised if he turned two of those on the left. He's got a case.
Ginsberg wouldn't budge. Too much of an idealogue like scalia

Kagan/Sotomayor are bought and paid for shills that offer nothing of substance, much like Thomas and Alito. They'll toe the line

You've gotta turn Breyer

[Thread]

Ginsberg wouldn't budge. Too much of an idealogue like scalia

Kagan/Sotomayor are bought and paid for shills that offer nothing of substance, much like Thomas and Alito. They'll toe the line

You've gotta turn Breyer

Yes, Ginsberg is inert. But, Kagan and Sotomayer are not set in stone for this momentous decision. This is big time. That's why (they) are trying to talk them/SC out of it. "Be mad because Trump called ass on that Washington judge."

Yes, Breyer has to see the light and he will. It's right there.

[DMC]

Trump will probably lose to the SCOTUS through a technicality. On his side is executive power, but against him is letter of the law and he's not real versed on it. Either way, the law and constitution needs to be upheld.

[Thread]

Trump will probably lose to the SCOTUS through a technicality. On his side is executive power, but against him is letter of the law and he's not real versed on it. Either way, the law and constitution needs to be upheld.

Well, they're going to have to put their name on it. He ain't going to let them offin' the hook like everybody wants.

I like that, a lot.

[CosmicCowboy]

Trump will probably lose to the SCOTUS through a technicality. On his side is executive power, but against him is letter of the law and he's not real versed on it. Either way, the law and constitution needs to be upheld.

:lol as if Trump would write the brief for SCOTUS

[Winehole23]

The legal arguments certainly aren't in the judges favor. As liberal as the 9th circuit is I don't see them upholding the ruling.the TRO bases itself on a 5th Circuit ruling on Obama's failed attempt to defer deporting DACA eligible via EO. States had standing in that case. They might win here too.

[Winehole23]

so, there is the recent precedent of a conservative circuit in play.

[CosmicCowboy]

Humorous that you would hang your hat on a ruling that a president couldn't defy existing immigration law instead of enforcing it as was his responsibility as the executive. Trumps regulations are refining existing law which is the role of the executive.

[ElNono]

Globalism is fundamentally socialist. It's all about dragging down strong nations to artificially prop up weak ones. Peak globalism would be a one world government where everyone except the elites is equally poor. Basically your typical third-world socialist state stretched out all over the globe.

I can see where people might get the impression that globalism is capitalist, since typically capitalist endeavors like trade are used to advance the cause. But the underlying principles are anti-free-market. There's a reason why prominent leftists like Soros are among the biggest cheerleaders for globalism.

Uh? Globalism is free-market taken to the extreme. Buy cheap, sell expensive. That's a tenet of free-market. You make and pay in China, you sell in the US. Capitalism 101.

Socialism is the government taking over Nike or putting up tariffs (that, as every free-market purist will tell you, are "market distorting"). This is basic economics. Soros/Shillary/Barry being in on the scam doesn't make it a 'left' thing, it's more like they're fake left (which we already knew).

[ElNono]

Your definition of globalism is wacked. Globalization could easily be used to explain why the US is the richest country in the world. It could also be used to explain wealth disparity.

What is globalism?

Globalism is that there's effectively no borders for trade, ideas, financials or even people. Everything is fungible. Product, worker, consumer, everything. You build at the cheapeast and sell at the highest, without considering any secondary impact (social, education, economic, etc). The advances in transportation and telecommunications basically have extended this to the extreme. IE: you pay telemarketers in India wages at India's standard of living, while serving and getting your earnings in US dollars.

In broad terms, if you follow pure free-market capitalism by the book (which means money is above everything else, including any notion of nation), this is pretty close to nirvana.

(In not so broad terms, there's market distortions of all sorts, but the endgame is always the same: make more money, which isn't inherently wrong, but has sometimes certain side effects)

[ElNono]

They'll have a Congress with full control soon to pass this as a law, if required. They'll even probably force it through reconciliation if necessary, with a few tweaks and Trump still hailing victory.

After that, there's new law, the EO can be rescinded, and there's no longer a case.

[ElNono]

Also, that Trump thinks of imposing tariffs and breaking 'Globalization', I suspect is what he means when he says putting America first. That's not a terrible thing in certain specific circumstances, IMO. But also that makes him stray pretty far from your average free-market, capitalist conservative.

[ElNono]

In a way, that 'con' has been going on for a long time. When the US lost manufacturing, the 'only' screwed was the factory worker. The companies made more money (cheaper labor + about same sell price), consumer received cheaper goods in the few areas where competition still works. That's when the fairy tale was that we needed to 're-train' and move to a 'services' economy. But then the 'services' became cheaper overseas again. And there's nowhere else to go but to lower our own standard of living to compete.

I've been saying for a long time that one of the major issues is that a lot of these companies have stopped even considering 'nation'. It's about their pockets and nothing else. It's a serious issue that has been going on for decades, and only become more and more exacerbated as technology enabled it even more. So I don't have a beef with some experimentation of reintegrating 'nation' into the whole concept. There will be winners and losers, as usual, but hopefully a little more balance and consideration of the secondary issues this free-wheeling economic policy has caused for a long time now. Obviously, I'll believe it when I see it.

[boutons_deux]

these companies have stopped even considering 'nation'

Where in any BigCorp's articles of incorporation is it written that "USA" or any country is to be preferred beneficiary of corporate activity, in preference to "profit" ?

The only objective is accumulation of capital (revenue exceeding costs), no matter who or what gets screwed (like injured, dead employees and polluted streams, etc, etc).

Big govt and high taxes from 1945 to 1975 floated everybody's boat, a historical anomaly that the oligarchy organized to "correct", in their favor, of course. The American Dream had some credibility in reality.

Low taxes (trickle down LIE) and defunded govt resulted in the richest rising and everybody else sinking, or at least stagnant in a backwater.

It appears that "tax reform" is dead for this and maybe next year, but tax cuts for BigCorp and wealthy will be voted ASAP.

Of course, the Repugs will somehow screw Trash's racist "white working class" the most, along with the rest of working, and want-to-work more, class.

[Blake]

Well, they're going to have to put their name on it. He ain't going to let them offin' the hook like everybody wants.

I like that, a lot.

I think some of them can't wait to put their name on it

[Winehole23]

Humorous that you would hang your hat on a ruling that a president couldn't defy existing immigration law instead of enforcing it as was his responsibility as the executive.I didn't hang my hat on it, the Seattle judge did. So did Washington and Minnesota.

[boutons_deux]

Trump’s loose talk about Muslims gets weaponized in court against travel ban

he was being taken too “literally (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/corey-lewandowskis-very-odd-explanation-of-donald-trumps-facts/?utm_term=.ac8aab9ddaca).” Some, like Vice President Pence, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/07/21/in-praising-trump-mike-pence-pushes-an-imaginary-and-corrupt-narrative/?utm_term=.676c65a3c092) wrote it off to his “colorful style.” Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him “standing ovations.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/08/donald-trumps-supporters-applaud-whatever-he-says-he-thinks-that-makes-him-right/?utm_term=.bd755a8a1f0f)

No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

In court papers, Washington and Minnesota’s attorneys general have pulled out quotes from speeches, news conferences and interviews as evidence that an executive order the administration argues is neutral was really

motivated by animus toward Muslims and a “desire to harm a particular group.”

His words, the two states say in their brief (http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/States_Response_to_Motion_for_Stay.pdf), show “that the President acted in bad faith in an effort to target Muslims.” The courts, they say, “have both the right and duty to examine” Trump’s “true motives.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/07/words-matter-trumps-loose-talk-about-muslims-gets-weaponized-in-court-against-travel-ban/?utm_term=.ea275daf4a34&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

[boutons_deux]

GOP bill to limit legal immigration will wreak havoc on Africans, Asians, and Latinos

This bill would hurt legal immigrants waiting “in line.”

Two Republican senators plan to release a bill Tuesday to aggressively go after the immigration system, slashing green cards and other visas to prevent immigrants from entering the United States through channels that are currently legal,

The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, cosponsored by

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA), backward, rural SLAVE states, of course

would ultimately reduce the number of people who can legally enter the country.

The measure would accomplish that by eliminating the diversity visa lottery — an annual lottery system that allocates 50,000 green cards to foreigners living in countries that have sent relatively few citizens to to the United States over the past five years — and limiting the ways through which U.S. citizens can sponsor their relatives for green cards.

The bill would also draw down the number of refugee admission from the 110,000 ceiling set for the 2017 fiscal year to 50,000, just like Trump’s executive order.

https://thinkprogress.org/legal-immigration-bill-cotton-perdue-62681972dd49#.50tr3h223

[Th'Pusher]

In a way, that 'con' has been going on for a long time. When the US lost manufacturing, the 'only' screwed was the factory worker. The companies made more money (cheaper labor + about same sell price), consumer received cheaper goods in the few areas where competition still works. That's when the fairy tale was that we needed to 're-train' and move to a 'services' economy. But then the 'services' became cheaper overseas again. And there's nowhere else to go but to lower our own standard of living to compete.

I've been saying for a long time that one of the major issues is that a lot of these companies have stopped even considering 'nation'. It's about their pockets and nothing else. It's a serious issue that has been going on for decades, and only become more and more exacerbated as technology enabled it even more. So I don't have a beef with some experimentation of reintegrating 'nation' into the whole concept. There will be winners and losers, as usual, but hopefully a little more balance and consideration of the secondary issues this free-wheeling economic policy has caused for a long time now. Obviously, I'll believe it when I see it.

Unfortunately, businesses don't take it upon themselves to consider "nation" on their own which prompts intervention from the Feds. Donald's tariff and nationalistic approach as compared to Obama's tax and redistributive approach both attempt to address the same problem. If companies would willfully distribute there earnings more equitably, federally induced market distortions wouldn't be as necessary.

I'll add this is largely a byproduct of public companies chasing the next quarter's earnings while creating an inflated market by overcompensating the few people who can move the needle on the financial KPIs the stock market values.

[CosmicCowboy]

GOP bill to limit legal immigration will wreak havoc on Africans, Asians, and Latinos

This bill would hurt legal immigrants waiting “in line.”

Two Republican senators plan to release a bill Tuesday to aggressively go after the immigration system, slashing green cards and other visas to prevent immigrants from entering the United States through channels that are currently legal,

The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, cosponsored by

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA), backward, rural SLAVE states, of course

would ultimately reduce the number of people who can legally enter the country.

The measure would accomplish that by eliminating the diversity visa lottery — an annual lottery system that allocates 50,000 green cards to foreigners living in countries that have sent relatively few citizens to to the United States over the past five years — and limiting the ways through which U.S. citizens can sponsor their relatives for green cards.

The bill would also draw down the number of refugee admission from the 110,000 ceiling set for the 2017 fiscal year to 50,000, just like Trump’s executive order.

https://thinkprogress.org/legal-immigration-bill-cotton-perdue-62681972dd49#.50tr3h223




Now the question is....is this bad?

We already have 50 million unemployed or underemployed people. Minority youth unemployment is 50%+ in many areas.

Do we really need to be importing more unskilled labor competition?

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo wants a $15 minimum wage. Less competition for jobs could do that naturally without importing more unskilled labor to compete with them.

[ElNono]

Unfortunately, businesses don't take it upon themselves to consider "nation" on their own which prompts intervention from the Feds. Donald's tariff and nationalistic approach as compared to Obama's tax and redistributive approach both attempt to address the same problem. If companies would willfully distribute there earnings more equitably, federally induced market distortions wouldn't be as necessary.

I'll add this is largely a byproduct of public companies chasing the next quarter's earnings while creating an inflated market by overcompensating the few people who can move the needle on the financial KPIs the stock market values.

It's definitely part of a much larger discussion. You certainly brought up something I've talked about before, on how the stock market role has changed dramatically from what it used to be (long term funding for expanding companies), to the next quarter quick buck. There's many reasons for that (chief among them is certainly stock options and golden parachutes for management), that I think are worthwhile exploring for somebody tackling economic policy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Boo wants a $15 minimum wage. Less competition for jobs could do that naturally without importing more unskilled labor to compete with them.

Let me guess. You're one of those cheap motherfuckers who still pays your helpers $7.25 like you've been doing since the 00s.

[tlongII]

^Poor assumption.^

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^Poor assumption.^

My family own a HVAC business in South Texas. I know exactly what I am talking about.

[Reck]

^Poor assumption.^

Are you sucking Cowboy's dick to be this certain?

[tlongII]

I probably know more about CC than either of you. Let's see what his response is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I probably know more about CC than either of you. Let's see what his response is.

So then you are sucking his dick.

[Reck]

I probably know more about CC than either of you.

That's for damn sure. You just admited to having intimate knowledge of what goes in Cowboy's head so you must be sucking him off.

[tlongII]

Uh, no.

[Splits]

Uh? Globalism is free-market taken to the extreme. Buy cheap, sell expensive. That's a tenet of free-market. You make and pay in China, you sell in the US. Capitalism 101.

Socialism is the government taking over Nike or putting up tariffs (that, as every free-market purist will tell you, are "market distorting"). This is basic economics. Soros/Shillary/Barry being in on the scam doesn't make it a 'left' thing, it's more like they're fake left (which we already knew).

http://www.greendragonsociety.com/images/Nuke23.gif

EN regulating Clits like he's in between a pair of legs

[boutons_deux]

"Socialism is the government taking over"

what fucking bullshit

[TeyshaBlue]

That's for damn sure. You just admited to having intimate knowledge of what goes in Cowboy's head so you must be sucking him off.
CC has been quite open as to how he compensates his employees. This is not news except for when it is apparently.

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao Trump back pedaling
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-delay/index.html

[hater]

Globalism is that there's effectively no borders for trade, ideas, financials or even people. Everything is fungible. Product, worker, consumer, everything. You build at the cheapeast and sell at the highest, without considering any secondary impact (social, education, economic, etc). The advances in transportation and telecommunications basically have extended this to the extreme. IE: you pay telemarketers in India wages at India's standard of living, while serving and getting your earnings in US dollars.

In broad terms, if you follow pure free-market capitalism by the book (which means money is above everything else, including any notion of nation), this is pretty close to nirvana.

(In not so broad terms, there's market distortions of all sorts, but the endgame is always the same: make more money, which isn't inherently wrong, but has sometimes certain side effects)

:lmao thats the disneyland version of the terms :lmao


clinton and Obamas and walk street were practicing the imperial brand of globalism – not the same as globalization – that emanates from the Pentagon and Wall Street.

As Rakyn says:
it is basically an example of “oligarchy posing as the spread of democracy”. “Economically, poor nations are treated to a burlesque of Adam Smith’s ideas of a free market while in reality being burdened by colonialism and neocolonialism”

globalism, as attempted by Obama and Clinton Is just economic impoverishment through technology and imperialism.

Devil Clinton and her handlers was trying to pull a fast one and enslave most countries through their brand of goobalism. Thank God Trump came along

[Blake]

:lmao Trump back pedaling
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-delay/index.html

He's bi polar

[CosmicCowboy]

CC has been quite open as to how he compensates his employees. This is not news except for when it is apparently.

:lol @ fuzzyfakenews and his claims on how I compensate my employees . And then he openly admits to having "family" abusively paying minimum wage :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

My family own a HVAC business in South Texas. I know exactly what I am talking about.

:lmao

Bet daddy's employees laugh about the second generation faggot loser.

[TeyshaBlue]

nevermind.

[ElNono]

:lmao thats the disneyland version of the terms :lmao


clinton and Obamas and walk street were practicing the imperial brand of globalism – not the same as globalization – that emanates from the Pentagon and Wall Street.

As Rakyn says:
it is basically an example of “oligarchy posing as the spread of democracy”. “Economically, poor nations are treated to a burlesque of Adam Smith’s ideas of a free market while in reality being burdened by colonialism and neocolonialism”

globalism, as attempted by Obama and Clinton Is just economic impoverishment through technology and imperialism.

Devil Clinton and her handlers was trying to pull a fast one and enslave most countries through their brand of goobalism. Thank God Trump came along

Well of course the shit hit the fan when the impoverishment started to show in the backyard too. Everybody loves the cheap shit and nobody cares if the chinamen gets paid 6c/hour, until they start losing their own jobs to them.

Part of the reason Trump played his cards well on that subject in the rust belt.

[ElNono]

"Socialism is the government taking over"

what fucking bullshit

Plenty of examples of this worldwide if you want me to enumerate. Notice that's socialism taken to it's purest form, much like we were talking about free-market taken to the extreme.

But you can go through Cuba, Venezuela, even recently Argentina... lots of cases of nationalization of private companies under the guise of social welfare.

[baseline bum]

Part of the reason Trump played his cards well on that subject in the rust belt.

Trump didn't play his cards well man, that's revisionist history. He played them a little less shitty than Clinton did, and squeaked out a win because of it.

[ElNono]

Trump didn't play his cards well man, that's revisionist history. He played them a little less shitty than Clinton did, and squeaked out a win because of it.

He talked tariffs, and factory jobs, and he was basically 1000000000000x more credible that Shillary in the one thing that mattered to them: opposing another trade accord in the TPP.

So maybe it was less shitty card, but he hit the right notes.

[boutons_deux]

He talked tariffs, and factory jobs, and he was basically 1000000000000x more credible

:lol He LIED, his racist "white working class" voters aren't gonna get shit from Trash and the Repugs.

no tariffs, no factory jobs, white working class gonna keep killing itself with guns, drugs, alcohol, reduced or no access to medical care.

Trash's voters gonna be no better off, probably worse off, in 2020.

But they will keep screwing themselves like they have been for 40+ years by voting Repug.

[ElNono]

He might have lied, time will tell. At the very least, he was much more credible than Shillary-Kain saying they suddenly started hating the TPP... that is fairly indisputable, especially coming from Shillary.

Also, you're pretty confused if you think the only people that voted for him are "racist white working class". There's a good chunk of people that identified with Bernie, simply for being a straight shooter, that went with him.

There's no dancing around that even though Trump was a terrible candidate, Shillary was just as bad (or worse).

[boutons_deux]

Trump on Immigration Power: I Can Do Whatever I Want

President Donald Trump defended his power to put limits on who can enter the U.S., saying it shouldn’t be challenged in the courts even as a three-judge panel weighs whether to reinstate restrictions on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

"You can suspend, you can put restrictions, you can do whatever you want," Trump told the chiefs, after reading the law. "It just can’t be written any plainer or better."

Earlier, in a posting on Twitter, Trump warned of dire consequences if his ban isn’t reinstated.

“If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled,” Trump said. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829299566344359936) “Politics!”

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-07/court-weighs-trump-travel-ban-in-key-test-of-presidential-power

The DILFer Trash is 2-year old, stamping his feet, throwing a tantrum, demanding anything and everything, or else.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Aide Derided Islam, Immigration And Diversity, Embraced An Anti-Semitic Past

wrote under a pseudonym last year that Islam is an inherently violent religion that is “incompatible with the modern West,” defended the World War II-era America First Committee, which included anti-Semites, as “unfairly maligned,” and called diversity “a source of weakness, tension and disunion.”

in the year leading up to the 2016 election, Anton operated as an anonymous booster of then-candidate Trump. Using the pen name Publius Decius Mus (the name of a self-sacrificing Roman consul), Anton promoted Trump’s anti-Islam, anti-immigration platform on fringe websites. The Weekly Standard revealed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-anonymous-pro-trump-decius-now-works-inside-the-white-house/article/2006623) Publius to be Anton last week.

Americans in 2016 needed to “charge the cockpit” and prevent Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/hillary-clinton) from winning the election — or die. The article, which ran in the Claremont Review of Books, was circulated widely on conservative and white nationalist websites. The New Yorker declared (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/intellectuals-for-trump) it “the most cogent argument for electing Trump” but cited the responses by Ross Douthat of The New York Times that he’d “rather risk defeat at my enemies’ hands than turn my own cause over to a incompetent tyrant” and by Jonah Goldberg of National Review that its central metaphor is “grotesquely irresponsible.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-anton-trump-essay-publius-decius-mus_us_589ba947e4b09bd304bff3c8?244ol1oapqlg14i&&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Morning%20Email%20020917&utm_content=The%20Morning%20Email%20020917+CID_bce fe7afbb24f0ad28230feb8da0d599&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&

Just another white supremacist/nationalist assholes, attracted to Trash like flies on shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol @ fuzzyfakenews and his claims on how I compensate my employees . And then he openly admits to having "family" abusively paying minimum wage :lmao

I never said that I paid min wage. We moved up to $9 when I was working there in 2003 before I went back to school. It's why I think it is hilarious that you are often in here for hours and then disappear around 5PM. When you were bitching to us about workers comp when your worker got hurt was just gold.

I see how you dodged answering which tells me what you do is nothing to be proud of.

PS - It's not my father. Damn, you are nouveau.

[ducks]

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/16507927_415799778762574_6209752676348244531_n.jpg ?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=c3d3a38fcb97248df24a9b04ca09294b&oe=5948B215

[Splits]

lol 53k+ posts and can't embed an image

[Blake]

He can barely spell

[Splits]

trump president not clinton

[Thread]

trump president not clinton

[DMX7]

Ban is in trouble now.

[djohn2oo8]

9th court rules against it
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html?adkey=bn

[DMX7]

I'm so sick of winning! :lol

Just like you said, Mr. Trump! :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Trump: Travel ban working out very nicelyhttp://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/01/28/trump-speaks-on-executive-order-travel-ban-nr.cnn

[boutons_deux]

Sean Spicer invents Atlanta terror attack to defend travel ban

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, in recent interviews, mentioned a terror attack in Atlanta when promoting President Trump's travel ban — one of the two Trump administration officials to invent a massacre when defending Trump's executive order.

"But what do we say to the family that loses somebody over a terroristic ... whether it's Atlanta or San Bernardino or the Boston bomber?" he told ABC's Martha Raddatz (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-29-17-sean-spicer-sen-mitch/story?id=45112815) in a Jan. 29 appearance on "This Week."

One day later, appearing on NBC's "Morning Joe (http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/spicer-on-bannon-s-controversy-and-the-travel-ban-865772611801)," he again mentioned Atlanta.

(http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/colbert-raise-money-bowling-green-massacre-victims-article-1.2965908)"Too many of these cases that have happened, whether you're talking about San Bernardino, Atlanta, they've happened, Boston," Spicer said. "The answer is, we act now to protect the future."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sean-spicer-imagines-atlanta-terror-attack-defend-travel-ban-article-1.2967096

=================

Colbert says he'll raise money for Bowling Green massacre victims

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/colbert-raise-money-bowling-green-massacre-victims-article-1.2965908

[CosmicCowboy]

I never said that I paid min wage. We moved up to $9 when I was working there in 2003 before I went back to school. It's why I think it is hilarious that you are often in here for hours and then disappear around 5PM. When you were bitching to us about workers comp when your worker got hurt was just gold.

I see how you dodged answering which tells me what you do is nothing to be proud of.

PS - It's not my father. Damn, you are nouveau.

My lowest paid guys compensation package is right at $30 an hour not counting overtime. Hardly anything to be ashamed of faggot.

[djohn2oo8]

829837023145971712

[spurraider21]

:lol trumps response to losing in court is to tweet "see you in court"

[boutons_deux]

:lol trumps response to losing in court is to tweet "see you in court"

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/09/president-donald-trump-twitter-reply-9th-circuit-court-ruling-immigration-order

[djohn2oo8]

:lol trumps response to losing in court is to tweet "see you in court"

:lmao

[ElNono]

I'm so sick of winning! :lol

Just like you said, Mr. Trump! :lmao

:lol tbh...

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol trumps response to losing in court is to tweet "see you in court"

9th was no surprise. They get overturned 3 out of 4.

[boutons_deux]

Trash ain't gonna "win" his silly wall, either.

[djohn2oo8]

9th was no surprise. They get overturned 3 out of 4.

How many.courts is that to block his ban?

[Reck]

:lmao

3-0 beatdown.

Still a loser.

[Blake]

Trash ain't gonna "win" his silly wall, either.

Dunno.

[Th'Pusher]

9th was no surprise. They get overturned 3 out of 4.
Liberal court for sure but a unanimous per curiam opinion is a pretty solid ass beating for the administration. said the order is reviewable which the administration was arguing it wasn't.

[clambake]

ok fella's stage an attack.

[clambake]

at nordstroms

[pgardn]

This was done in such a cavalier, sloppy manner.
This will not be the first piece of slop thrown back.

[pgardn]

Trash ain't gonna "win" his silly wall, either.

Cant see how you revel in anything. You would have reversed the election. You are everything your enemies are.

[monosylab1k]

829884675892064257

[rmt]

Poorly executed all around. Trump needs to slow down a bit and have his ducks in a row - like having an AG available. Can't believe he had this career guy argue the case - can't believe any attorney would do what Trump told him to do and put this un-reviewable stuff in. Do the nuclear option - approve the SC nomination, take it to SC and pray nothing happens in between. Don't let this be a distraction - continue with the rest - repeal/replace Obamacare, tax reform, etc.

[Th'Pusher]

Poorly executed all around. Trump needs to slow down a bit and have his ducks in a row - like having an AG available. Can't believe he had this career guy argue the case - can't believe any attorney would do what Trump told him to do and put this un-reviewable stuff in. Do the nuclear option - approve the SC nomination, take it to SC and pray nothing happens in between. Don't let this be a distraction - continue with the rest - repeal/replace Obamacare, tax reform, etc.

The Supreme Court isn't going to want anything to do with this case. It's not Congressional law and it's temporary. Trump should just pull the order and rewrite it. His ego won't allow that. Now that he's lost twice - pigheaded thin-skinned little bitch will fight this tooth and nail.

[DarrinS]

Patriots down 28-3

[Th'Pusher]

Patriots down 28-3

:lol comparing amateurs Trump and Bannon to Brady and Belichick

[DarrinS]

:lol comparing amateurs Trump and Bannon to Brady and Belichick

Those amateurs are in the WH. :lol

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[Th'Pusher]

Those amateurs are in the WH. :lol

And they're shitting their pants.

:lol Kellyanne Conway peddling Ivanka's shit clothing line that wasn't selling.

White House trash embarrassing America

[DarrinS]

And they're shitting their pants.

:lol Kellyanne Conway peddling Ivanka's shit clothing line that wasn't selling.

White House trash embarrassing America


You see what he made you do there? Ivanka's clothing line? :lol

[boutons_deux]

:lol comparing amateurs Trump and Bannon to Brady and Belichick

4 Pats refusing to slime themselves by visiting WH

[rmt]

Those amateurs are in the WH. :lol

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Didn't Trump's (overall) chance go into the teens?

WI - 83.5% Clinton, 16.5% Trump - LOL

[Th'Pusher]

You see what he made you do there? Ivanka's clothing line? :lol

:lol you'd suck his sick if he asked you to.

Every time trump shits his pants sycophants line up to act like he did it on purpose to troll his detractors.

Nordstrom wouldn't have dropped the line if it was selling. That's capitalism.

[rmt]

:lol you'd suck his sick if he asked you to.

Every time trump shits his pants sycophants line up to act like he did it on purpose to troll his detractors.

Nordstrom wouldn't have dropped the line if it was selling. That's capitalism.

So all the other companies got their numbers at the same time and decided to drop?

Would someone please advise if it's possible to get rid of this suspected phishing thing? I'm getting mighty tired of Ignore warning

[DarrinS]

:lol you'd suck his sick if he asked you to.

Every time trump shits his pants sycophants line up to act like he did it on purpose to troll his detractors.

Nordstrom wouldn't have dropped the line if it was selling. That's capitalism.


I actually can't stand him, but I dislike you tribalist Obamatards more.

[Th'Pusher]

So all the other companies got their numbers at the same time and decided to drop?

Would someone please advise if it's possible to get rid of this suspected phishing thing? I'm getting mighty tired of Ignore warning

her line wasn't great. She didn't do anything to differentiate herself. She was selling her brand and her dad soiled it. Trust me. If she had outstanding product that was moving, she'd still be in Nordstrom and Nieman Marcus. Those buyers aren't fools.

[Th'Pusher]

I actually can't stand him, but I dislike you tribalist Obamatards more.

:lol at still playing the, "I'm not a trump fan but..." card.

[rmt]

her line wasn't great. She didn't do anything to differentiate herself. She was selling her brand and her dad soiled it. Trust me. If she had outstanding product that was moving, she'd still be in Nordstrom and Nieman Marcus. Those buyers aren't fools.

Her brand was doing fine all these years and suddenly it's not since Trump is president? Sorry I don't buy that. Either the companies or their owners don't want to be associated with anything Trump - no matter what the product.

[DarrinS]

:lol at still playing the, "I'm not a trump fan but..." card.

You're just suffering the rope-a-dope bro. Just like the media. But, go ahead and go to the mattresses on this travel ban. :lol

[SnakeBoy]

829846842150096896

[Thread]

829846842150096896

She found out that Trump was not the easy clean that Sanders had been.

Uh, uh.

[djohn2oo8]

You're just suffering the rope-a-dope bro. Just like the media. But, go ahead and go to the mattresses on this travel ban. :lol

Its unconstitutional Period.

[Th'Pusher]

Her brand was doing fine all these years and suddenly it's not since Trump is president? Sorry I don't buy that. Either the companies or their owners don't want to be associated with anything Trump - no matter what the product.

Have you ever considered that consumers stopped buying the product?

[Th'Pusher]

You're just suffering the rope-a-dope bro. Just like the media. But, go ahead and go to the mattresses on this travel ban. :lol

My recommendation was that he pull the ban and redo it, properly. Not that I agree with the ban. I think it'll do nothing for public safety, but I recognize the president has broad authority when it comes to immigration. He shit his pants on the implementation. But again, he's too prideful to pull it so he'll fight, like the moron that he is. His base will love it, it'll galvanize his opposition and the sideshow will continue.

[boutons_deux]

Cant see how you revel in anything. You would have reversed the election. You are everything your enemies are.

:lol

Of course, Hillary would be MUCH BETTER than Trash.

What politics do you "revel" in? :lol

[boutons_deux]

"pull the ban and redo it, properly"

visitors, really, how many/year?, from these 7 countries are NOT a threat to USA.

TRASH/BANNON's ban is pure BULLSHIT.

It didn't, it wouldn't increase USA security.

That's just ANOTHER TRASH LIE.

The ban was nothing but Bannon's exercise in his well-known MUSLIM HATE, Bannon wimpily fighting his War of Civilizations.

And they didn't care how many non-terrorist people they fucked over.

[Blake]

Those amateurs are in the WH. :lol

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Yeah, Americans left no doubt to the rest of the civilized world just how collectively stupid we are

[Thread]

Yeah, Americans left no doubt to the rest of the civilized world just how collectively stupid we are

Of course that 60 billion dollar trade deficit with those asshole Mexicans wasn't a hard clue as to just "just how collectively stupid we are."

[Blake]

Of course that 60 billion dollar trade deficit with those asshole Mexicans wasn't a hard clue as to just "just how collectively stupid we are."

GM, Ford etc taking advantage of cheap Mexican labor fueling that deficit isn't indicative of how stupid the American people are.

Making a reality star orange clown the POTUS is.

[Thread]

GM, Ford etc taking advantage of cheap Mexican labor fueling that deficit isn't indicative of how stupid the American people are.

Making a reality star orange clown the POTUS is.

60 billion dollars.

[leemajors]

60 billion dollars.

Texas is at a surplus, dunno what the rest of the country's problem is. Also, the deficit with China is 5x that.

[Thread]

Texas is at a surplus, dunno what the rest of the country's problem is. Also, the deficit with China is 5x that.

I can almost accept that, but, to let those wastes of space wise guy us at -60 billion dollars?

[Blake]

60 billion dollars.

K, what are you going to do about it

[Chucho]

Just do what Bush and Obama did...bomb the shit out of them overseas where no one cares because it isn't in front of their faces or reported on Western media.

Americans simply don't care about people dying unless they are told to on social or news media. It's part of the reason they are fine with baby murder too.

[Blake]

Just do what Bush and Obama did...bomb the shit out of them overseas where no one cares because it isn't in front of their faces or reported on Western media.

Americans simply don't care about people dying unless they are told to on social or news media. It's part of the reason they are fine with baby murder too.

Lol "they" are fine with baby murder.

[Thread]

Americans simply don't care about people dying unless they are told to on social or news media. It's part of the reason they are fine with baby murder too.

Chooch

[Chucho]

Lol "they" are fine with baby murder.

Some sad broad killed your seed, I take it? That might be defensible, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Texas is at a surplus, dunno what the rest of the country's problem is. Also, the deficit with China is 5x that.

where are your stats on Texas in surplus, TX exports vs imports?

the TX budget is about $6B short. No doubt, the Repugs will screw the poor and schools to make up that $6B, while not touching the $20B/year in tax breaks to BigCorp

=============

Texas’ budget surplus could ‘disappear’ next year (2017)

The oil and gas industry represents around 14 percent of the Texas economy.

http://kxan.com/2016/04/19/texas-budget-chief-lawmakers-should-prepare-for-hard-choices/

[z0sa]

Agree with appellate court's opinion on:
- questionable intent (Muslim ban rhetoric, fine print prioritizing refugees in the religious minority)
- unlawful suspension of due process (all aliens and lawful permanent residents alike affected - easy one)

These alone are enough.

I somewhat disagree with court's opinion on:
- govt showing a stay is needed to avoid irreparable harm. This is probably where the unreviewable argument came from. The bench should not pay lip service to deference during war time then apply coercive circular logic, imho. As long as the govt asserts the necessity of the ban, it is assumed avoiding irreparable harm is the intended ends. That said, the sheer breadth of the ban combined with aforementiined questionable intent insults the public's intelligence and degrades trust in our govt even further.

Curious about the SCOTUS and whether it will take this case. The real problem would seem to be the sweeping language used by congress in authorizing the POTUS such unilateral powers as banning any class of alien, for instance.

[clambake]

this problem is almost solved. trump said they were going to get on this rapidly....



...next week.

[clambake]

not a prob.

terrorist, as is commonly known, take off on the weekends.

[Blake]

Some sad broad killed your seed, I take it? That might be defensible, tbh.

No. You're terrible at assumptions

[z0sa]

this problem is almost solved. trump said they were going to get on this rapidly....



...next week.

Trump experienced his first check by a fourth branch, if you will - Time. How does he handle the waiting game?

[clambake]

Trump experienced his first check by a fourth branch, if you will - Time. How does he handle the waiting game?

i can't believe these libroturds won't let my president protect me.

[clambake]

i want my:ban:

[ElNono]

Agree with appellate court's opinion on:
- questionable intent (Muslim ban rhetoric, fine print prioritizing refugees in the religious minority)
- unlawful suspension of due process (all aliens and lawful permanent residents alike affected - easy one)

These alone are enough.

I somewhat disagree with court's opinion on:
- govt showing a stay is needed to avoid irreparable harm. This is probably where the unreviewable argument came from. The bench should not pay lip service to deference during war time then apply coercive circular logic, imho. As long as the govt asserts the necessity of the ban, it is assumed avoiding irreparable harm is the intended ends. That said, the sheer breadth of the ban combined with aforementiined questionable intent insults the public's intelligence and degrades trust in our govt even further.

Curious about the SCOTUS and whether it will take this case. The real problem would seem to be the sweeping language used by congress in authorizing the POTUS such unilateral powers as banning any class of alien, for instance.

There's precedent on the reviewability of EOs under the guise of natsec by courts that are not even that old. The SCOTUS itself bitchslapped dubya's argument that Guantanamo detainees didn't have access to the judicial. That was what, a mere 10 years ago?

The unreviewability argument is extremely stupid, and fairly amateur. Courts can certainly defer after reviewing, but bringing up that argument is frankly pretty insulting.

Really, if they re-drafted the order without including Green card holders, they would likely be pretty much in the clear...

[lefty20]

Yeah, Americans left no doubt to the rest of the civilized world just how collectively stupid we are

We really gonna sit here and pretend that the world didn't know this already?

[z0sa]

There's precedent on the reviewability of EOs under the guise of natsec by courts that are not even that old. The SCOTUS itself bitchslapped dubya's argument that Guantanamo detainees didn't have access to the judicial. That was what, a mere 10 years ago?

The unreviewability argument is extremely stupid, and fairly amateur. Courts can certainly defer after reviewing, but bringing up that argument is frankly pretty insulting.

Really, if they re-drafted the order without including Green card holders, they would likely be pretty much in the clear...

Even non resident aliens receive fifth amendment rights..Your idea about GCs, plus a set time period before the ban begins, etc

about the court order...
I think the CIC's check on judicial review must exist, if only during rare instances of war time, acting n reliable evidence, and under restriction. Executive and judicial branches need to break new legal ground here so that continued brickwalling is averted.

Bush just felt nervous and guilty, euphemistic at best

Obamas knowledgable circumvention of a deadlocked congress, in an election year screams over reach.

Trumps ban fails using this defense just because no one can take him seriously that its not just anti muslim sentiments fueling his ban.

[ducks]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/10/marine-vet-speaks-out-about-viral-video-supporting-trump-travel-ban.html

A Marine Corps veteran and contractor told Fox News on Friday he couldn't believe that his video from Iraq supporting President Trump's travel restrictions went viral -- more than 44 million views and counting

[Winehole23]

what happened to people:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/02/how_badly_did_cbp_treat_visa_holders_read_these_ho rror_stories.html