Of course I'll be angry about the decisions I think are wrong, it doesn't mean I will think that the judges decided them because of their fealty to who appointed them. That is undermining the judiciary, which is shameful.
You need to pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and realize that citing the whole of "the Constitution" is not citing pertinent law. She's supposed to be a lawyer.Today I learned the Constitution isn't 'pertinent law'. Lol.
Someone needs to buy you a Civics for Dummies book.
I'm glad she stood up for the 2nd Amendment. ............. oh wait.I am not a huge fan of Sally Yates, but kudos to her for standing up to Trump on the "immigration" ban. And, once again, Trump shows his thin skinned, 2 year mental state by whining that she somehow "betrayed" him for standing up for the Constitution. One less grownup with a spine for Trump to deal with.
We will have to disagree on this point. What I see in a lot of American cities is increased gentrification, segregation, tribalism and NIMBYism. Assuming there is a systemic issue of predatory policing, that reflects on both the police and the communities they serve. Take the police out of the equation, and other systemic issues in these communities still remain. Some of those systemic issues actually parallel the ones that motivated many white blue collar workers to shift their allegiance to Trump.You have either not read the DOJ reports on predatory policing in Chicago, Ferguson, Baltimore, etc, or you are deliberately trying to paper over them.
It is absolutely predation. It's not even close.
We do not have a tiered court system for that reason, no. (At least not in any large amount)
I think you should take a long look in the mirror. Complaining about government not working for the white working class and then calling efforts to stop widespread, documented predation on black communities shameful is the epitome of living in a bubble. You've lost all perspective and your positions are based on tribalism.
The woulda coulda shoulda is at the heart of what strategy the Democrats choose moving forward. It is absolutely material to rational discussion.It's apparently your assignment. You know full well that Clinton & Sanders are water under the bridge, immaterial to rational discussion of events as they unfold. You're gaslighting us with the woulda, shoulda, coulda of blame shifting & misdirection, all the while feigning concern.
We will have to disagree on this point. What I see in a lot of American cities is increased gentrification, segregation, tribalism and NIMBYism. Assuming there is a systemic issue of predatory policing, that reflects on both the police and the communities they serve. Take the police out of the equation, and other systemic issues in these communities still remain. Some of those systemic issues actually parallel the ones that motivated many white blue collar workers to shift their allegiance to Trump.
Hindsight is very much 20/20. There was no guarantee of a Sanders win against Trump. Given Clinton's liabilities and Trump's narrow path to victory, I still believe strategically that Sanders was the better candidate. Had Clinton won, my argument would have no leg to stand on. Since she fumbled at the goal line, I have one leg to stand on. A glorious, pirate inspired peg leg.
How does it feel to be paranoid and wrong?Weren't you in the other thread vehemently denying any obligation to protect fellow fascists? Yet here you are trying to make the thread about sanders/clinton; anything but straight up fascism. How does it feel to work alongside import and compuwiz?
How does it feel to be paranoid and wrong?
Let's get this thread back on topic. I was watching Wolf Blitzer last night and he had Seth Moulton on as a guest. I like Moulton and give him inmediate credibility because he is a white welfare veteran like me.It's trivially true from your own comment history.
Section 5(b) of the order is what makes it probable that it, at least in part, would be found unconstitutional.Let's get this thread back on topic. I was watching Wolf Blitzer last night and he had Seth Moulton on as a guest. I like Moulton and give him inmediate credibility because he is a white welfare veteran like me.
Wolf asked him what was unconstitutional about Trump's travel EO. Moulton, who is an articulate and intelligent person, couldn't answer the question. To my surprise, Blitzer called him out on it, and Moulton reverted to the same semantics argument about the use of the word "ban".
Couldn't cite any Constitutional articles or legal precedent. His argument was essentially that the word "ban" is mean.
Given that and the confirmation bias sh!t show Pelosi threw last night, it is clear to me that Democrat still don't understand why they lost and are seemingly incapable of formulating a cohesive opposition strategy.
I saw a few minutes of that. She was a mess. Absolute mess. Didn't have her arguments together in any sense. Not really sure why she continues to get a leadership position in the democratic party.Let's get this thread back on topic. I was watching Wolf Blitzer last night and he had Seth Moulton on as a guest. I like Moulton and give him inmediate credibility because he is a white welfare veteran like me.
Wolf asked him what was unconstitutional about Trump's travel EO. Moulton, who is an articulate and intelligent person, couldn't answer the question. To my surprise, Blitzer called him out on it, and Moulton reverted to the same semantics argument over the use of the word "ban".
Couldn't cite any Constitutional articles or legal precedent. His argument was essentially that the word "ban" is mean.
Given that and the confirmation bias sh!t show Pelosi threw last night, it is clear to me that Democrat still don't understand why they lost and are seemingly incapable of formulating a cohesive opposition strategy.
No debate from me and great analogy. I think there needs to be a conversation around H1B visas and slots taken at our top universities, but that is not the conversation Trump is initiating. We all know travel bans are ineffective in stopping an ideology.I saw a few minutes of that. She was a mess. Absolute mess. Didn't have her arguments together in any sense. Not really sure why she continues to get a leadership position in the democratic party.
Re trump's ban. Think about it like this. The KKK was essentially a loosely knit american terror organization made up of mostly christian white men. Over the span of a century its estimated, they killed about 3500 black men (about the same number that died in the 9/11 attacks).If the response to the KKK in the 1950s was to ban immigration from germany, ireland, italy, england, scotland, france, the netherlands, etc the countries were christian white men in this country hail from, what would people say? How would people defend this ban?
They'd say things like
1) the economic cost of such a ban is high in relation to the harm faced and lack of efficacy of such a step in reducing further violence
2) its unamerican and racist and probably unconstitutional based on many facets of discrimination
3) its unethical as these people may be fleeing persecution
4) it doesn't do anything to affect KKK members physically here who are actually actively engaged in terrorism and do procreate and raise children in their stead
5) it disproportionately hurts women and children who have nothing to the with the KKK and its activities in general as this is a male endeavour
6) it may only infuriate KKK members even more and worsen our standing and relationship with other countries in the world
They are the majority party in the Senate and will be until at least 2020, the same thing happened when Harry Reid was Senate Majority leader.They didn't. Committee advanced him 11-9 on party lines. All democrats said no. GOP said whatever.
What I don't understand is how on every committee the GOP has a 1 or 2 person advantage when on the entire senate they have only a 2 person advantage... Assuming there are 10 committees, what kind of breakdown would you expect to see?
Let's get this thread back on topic. I was watching Wolf Blitzer last night and he had Seth Moulton on as a guest. I like Moulton and give him inmediate credibility because he is a white welfare veteran like me.
Wolf asked him what was unconstitutional about Trump's travel EO. Moulton, who is an articulate and intelligent person, couldn't answer the question. To my surprise, Blitzer called him out on it, and Moulton reverted to the same semantics argument over the use of the word "ban".
Couldn't cite any Constitutional articles or legal precedent. His argument was essentially that the word "ban" is mean.
Given that and the confirmation bias sh!t show Pelosi threw last night, it is clear to me that Democrat still don't understand why they lost and are seemingly incapable of formulating a cohesive opposition strategy.
I KNOW you two have metYou need to pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and realize that citing the whole of "the Constitution" is not citing pertinent law. She's supposed to be a lawyer.
Section 5(b) of the order is what makes it probable that it, at least in part, would be found unconstitutional.
The Justice Department confirmed its Office of Legal Counsel had done a review of the order to determine whether it was "on its face, lawful, and properly drafted."
That's nice. And the USSC has never disagreed with the DoJ.And yet the Dept of Justice itself examined the EO 'ban' before it was issued and deemed it legal:
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/justice-department-wont-defend-trumps-immigration-order
Fern
Have you ever noticed that i've never denied being a partisan jerk? I am and I laugh at the liars like fskholespy that deny it.I KNOW you two have met
Giuliani has a big mouth, but last I checked, has no official position. He is that guy who wants his additional 5 minutes and feel important.What an odd argument when Giuliani literally bragged about designing the ban that way.
Those look just like the ones at your house, the ones I liked so much I ordered a set for myself!!!I KNOW you two have met
Giuliani has a big mouth, but last I checked, has no official position. He is that guy who wants his additional 5 minutes and feel important.