Page 5 of 272 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 4070

Thread: Had enough yet

  1. #61
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by mark blazejewski:
    The administration, as promised, has put a "hold" on refugees from seven nations identified by the Obama administration as being problematic regarding because those nations have "broken" governments. A federal judge has ruled the "hold" as unconstitutional and now the President's Executive Order faces the appellate process.
    Looks like our democratic county exec doesn't get it that his hero Obama identified these countries first as being problematic


    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Looks like our democratic county exec doesn't get it that his hero Obama identified these countries first as being problematic

    And Trump was powerless to change the list.

  3. #63
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    And Trump was powerless to change the list.
    The Executive Order was constructed in such a way as not to focus on one specific religion, but on a seemingly flawed process which may inadvertently permit hostile actors, from PREVIOUSLY identified "broken nations," entry into the United States.

    The Trump administration has publicly stated, pending further scrutiny, that more nations may be added to the list.

    It may be wise to stop weighing everything visa v Obama and Trump. The broad interests of national security transcends the temporary political landscape.

    Acting swiftly and decisively, in the interests of national security, has always been viewed as a plenary power of the President.

    Politics is politics, I get it. But, the President's ability to protect the lives of the American people, I don't care if the President is Trump or Obama, should not be whimsically reduced, especially by a third string member of the federal judiciary, who maybe politically myopic and dutifully tone deaf. (And yea I know the judge was a Bush 43 appointee, but that judge seems to habitually rule to the left, and has a historic affection for those who maybe negatively impacted by Trump's order.)
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; February 5th, 2017 at 12:08 PM.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    The Executive Order was constructed in such a way as not to focus on one specific religion, but on a seemingly flawed process which may inadvertently permit hostile actors, from PREVIOUSLY identified "broken nations," entry into the United States.

    The Trump administration has publicly stated, pending further scrutiny, that more nations may be added to the list.

    It may be wise to stop weighing everything visa v Obama and Trump. The broad interests of national security transcends the temporary political landscape.

    Acting swiftly and decisively, in the interests of national security, has always been viewed as a plenary power of the President.

    Politics is politics, I get it. But, the President's ability to protect the lives of the American people, I don't care if the President is Trump or Obama, should not be whimsically reduced, especially by a third string member of the federal judiciary, who maybe politically myopic and dutifully tone deaf. (And yea I know the judge was a Bush 43 appointee, but that judge seems to habitually rule to the left, and has a historic affection for those who maybe negatively impacted by Trump's order.)
    Well, equal branches of power are a constitutional reality that it seems this administration needs to comes to terms with if they want to advance their agenda.

    Perhaps they will learn to play better with others. They have two years to do so before what could potentially be a democratic takeover of the house and senate.

  5. #65
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Well, equal branches of power are a constitutional reality that it seems this administration needs to comes to terms with if they want to advance their agenda.

    Perhaps they will learn to play better with others. They have two years to do so before what could potentially be a democratic takeover of the house and senate.
    Your response is entirely political and misses the point of my post.

    You are correct. There are three co-equal branches of government. However, IMHO, absent a specific finding showing that Trump's Executive Order is an unconstitutional application of Presidential authority, one would think that his plenary power or authority would be affirmed in this case.

    BEAR IN MIND:

    (1) No immigrant or refugee has an inherent right to be admitted to the United States.

    (2) The President has an obligation to protect the lives of the American people.

    (3) ISIS, which was born from Al Qaeda in Iraq, loudly and vocally, expressed their intention to infiltrate the refugee population(s) of the nations specified in Trump's order, and to deploy those infiltrators in such a way as to inflict harm on America and Americans. In my mind, that constitutes not only a direct threat to the security and safety of the American nation, but may represent a "clear and present" wartime danger.

    (4) President Obama's very similar restriction on Iraq refugees, in some ways, spoke to the same issue.

    I hope, to the maximum extent possible, that everyone takes politics out of issues concerning life and death.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; February 5th, 2017 at 02:47 PM.

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Cool

    I like this -

    "It may be wise to stop weighing everything visa v Obama and Trump. The broad interests of national security transcends the temporary political landscape.

    Acting swiftly and decisively, in the interests of national security, has always been viewed as a plenary power of the President.

    Politics is politics, I get it. But, the President's ability to protect the lives of the American people, I don't care if the President is Trump or Obama, should not be whimsically reduced, especially by a third string member of the federal judiciary, who maybe politically myopic and dutifully tone deaf. (And yea I know the judge was a Bush 43 appointee, but that judge seems to habitually rule to the left, and has a historic affection for those who maybe negatively impacted by Trump's order.)

    But you see Dem Controllers cant stop hurting - they only see their rage and disappointment as their party goes through a demoralizing melt down. The world is watching as Democrat Controlled Democracy unfolds as a scam.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Your response is entirely political and misses the point of my post.

    You are correct. There are three co-equal branches of government. However, IMHO, absent a specific finding showing that Trump's Executive Order is an unconstitutional application of Presidential authority, one would think that his plenary power or authority would be affirmed in this case.

    BEAR IN MIND:

    (1) No immigrant or refugee has an inherent right to be admitted to the United States.

    (2) The President has an obligation to protect the lives of the American people.

    (3) ISIS, which was born from Al Qaeda in Iraq, loudly and vocally, expressed their intention to infiltrate the refugee population(s) of the nations specified in Trump's order, and to deploy those infiltrators in such a way as to inflict harm on America and Americans. In my mind, that constitutes not only a direct threat to the security and safety of the American nation, but may represent a "clear and present" wartime danger.

    (4) President Obama's very similar restriction on Iraq refugees, in some ways, spoke to the same issue.

    I hope, to the maximum extent possible, that everyone takes politics out of issues concerning life and death.
    "Entirely political"? The last part perhaps.

    As someone who travels for a living, Trump has probably made me less safe than I was two weeks ago....

    I certainly won't feel safer boarding my plane on Monday....

  8. #68
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    "Entirely political"? The last part perhaps.

    As someone who travels for a living, Trump has probably made me less safe than I was two weeks ago....

    I certainly won't feel safer boarding my plane on Monday....
    Curious to know why?

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    From the Washington Post:

    The administration is complying with the order. But Trump's increasingly alarming tweets and this type of rhetoric about the judge's authority begs the question: What if it didn't? What if Trump -- or any president -- decided too much was at stake or that he didn't recognize “this so-called judge's" authority?

    It's something experts on executive authority have been chewing over. Given Trump's populist campaign, admiration for authoritarian leaders and expressed skepticism toward the political establishment, some think it's it's possible he takes on the judicial establishment, too.

    “They're spoiling for a fight, and that’s what populists do,” said Daniel P. Franklin, a professor at Georgia State University. “And I think that’s the way it plays out — maybe not on this issue, but on something.”


    It is quite obvious both sides are spoiling for a fight on many issues/policies and Trump will only win whatever fight based on law and legitimacy. We have not elected a king but a president who like Obama has a ‘pen and a paper’ but where ‘executive privilege’ has its boundaries.

    Trump will be under more scrutiny than any past president by a biased liberal press, a disruptive liberal political class and the obtuse Hollywood crowd.

    Trump is already walked back and/or softened on many of his unrealistic campaign promises and has put up for nomination individuals who have already expressed positions other than his own. There is nothing wrong with a Congressional Democratic Party that will hold Trump accountable – based on reason, not political gain. It is no surprise that many of us are disgusted with the inept/dysfunctional government we have and its petty politics.

    The fear mongering media posts, the protests (even the one million Womens March), the hateful rhetoric displayed by the proclaimed loving, tolerant and inclusive left have little impact on 63 million Americans that wanted change; change in the country’s policies that are in the best interest of Americans well being and security first.
    One thing can be said about Trump, he is certainly not pandering for votes.

    To the f*** Trump crowd who compare him to Hitler and his administration to Nazism, who have dreams of blowing up the White House, etc., seriously? This hateful rhetoric and the violence on display serve the country’s best interest how?

  10. #70
    Member Save Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    From the Washington Post:

    The administration is complying with the order. But Trump's increasingly alarming tweets and this type of rhetoric about the judge's authority begs the question: What if it didn't? What if Trump -- or any president -- decided too much was at stake or that he didn't recognize “this so-called judge's" authority?

    It's something experts on executive authority have been chewing over. Given Trump's populist campaign, admiration for authoritarian leaders and expressed skepticism toward the political establishment, some think it's it's possible he takes on the judicial establishment, too.

    “They're spoiling for a fight, and that’s what populists do,” said Daniel P. Franklin, a professor at Georgia State University. “And I think that’s the way it plays out — maybe not on this issue, but on something.”


    It is quite obvious both sides are spoiling for a fight on many issues/policies and Trump will only win whatever fight based on law and legitimacy. We have not elected a king but a president who like Obama has a ‘pen and a paper’ but where ‘executive privilege’ has its boundaries.

    Trump will be under more scrutiny than any past president by a biased liberal press, a disruptive liberal political class and the obtuse Hollywood crowd.

    Trump is already walked back and/or softened on many of his unrealistic campaign promises and has put up for nomination individuals who have already expressed positions other than his own. There is nothing wrong with a Congressional Democratic Party that will hold Trump accountable – based on reason, not political gain. It is no surprise that many of us are disgusted with the inept/dysfunctional government we have and its petty politics.

    The fear mongering media posts, the protests (even the one million Womens March), the hateful rhetoric displayed by the proclaimed loving, tolerant and inclusive left have little impact on 63 million Americans that wanted change; change in the country’s policies that are in the best interest of Americans well being and security first.
    One thing can be said about Trump, he is certainly not pandering for votes.

    To the f*** Trump crowd who compare him to Hitler and his administration to Nazism, who have dreams of blowing up the White House, etc., seriously? This hateful rhetoric and the violence on display serve the country’s best interest how?
    The left will be tolerant when you believe as they do, just like Islamic countries. And if you don't then there will be blood. So who are the fascists now?
    There are over 4 billion people that make less than 2 dollars a day, we rescue 1 million a year. 1 out of 4,000 in millions. Immigration will never solve these countries problems. They have to be solved from where they live, and limiting population growth would be an intelligent place to start.

    These idiots that throw around the term Hitler have no understanding of history, of what they are talking about.

  11. #71
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    From the Washington Post:

    The administration is complying with the order. But Trump's increasingly alarming tweets and this type of rhetoric about the judge's authority begs the question: What if it didn't? What if Trump -- or any president -- decided too much was at stake or that he didn't recognize “this so-called judge's" authority?

    It's something experts on executive authority have been chewing over. Given Trump's populist campaign, admiration for authoritarian leaders and expressed skepticism toward the political establishment, some think it's it's possible he takes on the judicial establishment, too.

    “They're spoiling for a fight, and that’s what populists do,” said Daniel P. Franklin, a professor at Georgia State University. “And I think that’s the way it plays out — maybe not on this issue, but on something.”


    It is quite obvious both sides are spoiling for a fight on many issues/policies and Trump will only win whatever fight based on law and legitimacy. We have not elected a king but a president who like Obama has a ‘pen and a paper’ but where ‘executive privilege’ has its boundaries.

    Trump will be under more scrutiny than any past president by a biased liberal press, a disruptive liberal political class and the obtuse Hollywood crowd.

    Trump is already walked back and/or softened on many of his unrealistic campaign promises and has put up for nomination individuals who have already expressed positions other than his own. There is nothing wrong with a Congressional Democratic Party that will hold Trump accountable – based on reason, not political gain. It is no surprise that many of us are disgusted with the inept/dysfunctional government we have and its petty politics.

    The fear mongering media posts, the protests (even the one million Womens March), the hateful rhetoric displayed by the proclaimed loving, tolerant and inclusive left have little impact on 63 million Americans that wanted change; change in the country’s policies that are in the best interest of Americans well being and security first.
    One thing can be said about Trump, he is certainly not pandering for votes.

    To the f*** Trump crowd who compare him to Hitler and his administration to Nazism, who have dreams of blowing up the White House, etc., seriously? This hateful rhetoric and the violence on display serve the country’s best interest how?
    In his compliance, Trump has expressed his respect for the judiciary.

    Bear in mind, a federal court in Boston ruled favorably toward Trump, and the San Francisco appeals court issued a rather murky ruling. As such, Trump may have mimicked Nixon. IMHO, the President could have easily argued "separation of powers," and conditioned compliance on what James St. Claire once characterized as a "definitive ruling of the Supreme Court."

    In this instance, Trump appears to have avoided a Constitutional crisis and is permitting entry throughout the appeals process. To wit, it would seem that the "Hitler" comparison is inappropriate.

    No, I don't like the Tweeting. With its character limitations, and along with perhaps a degree of knee-jerk reaction(s), this Tweeting is a f****accident waiting to happen. I know he wants to get around the mainstream propaganda media, and it may work out for him in the long run, but I simply do not like rash, soundbite governance.

    Trump's comment of "so-called judge" was unnecessary. The judge is a judge period. Instead of using sarcastic characterizations, the President may have been better served by pointing out the judge's rather chronic sympathetic tendencies toward left wing issues, and by observing that the same judge has a favorable pre-disposition toward the exact same group(s) that the order may have negatively impacted.

    Just my thoughts.

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Curious to know why?
    What this administration has done, by acting without consulting even its own cabinet, is create anger and more importantly confusion. There was sporadic enforcement of the EO and now it has been halted. Whatever good intentions they had, if any were unraveled by their own incompetence.

    Mysteriously, countries that Trump does business in, but are hotbeds for terrorist activity were left off the list. Even more laughable are the people that believe this is because Obama created the list and Trump had no say in it.

    To use Trumps words, it has been "a complete disaster".

    I'll change my tune as soon as I hear about a potential threat that was stopped by this process that would not have been stopped by the previous process that didn't cause mass outrage and disarray.

  13. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    In his compliance, Trump has expressed his respect for the judiciary.
    eye roll emoji dot com

  14. #74
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    What this administration has done, by acting without consulting even its own cabinet, is create anger and more importantly confusion. There was sporadic enforcement of the EO and now it has been halted. Whatever good intentions they had, if any were unraveled by their own incompetence.

    Mysteriously, countries that Trump does business in, but are hotbeds for terrorist activity were left off the list. Even more laughable are the people that believe this is because Obama created the list and Trump had no say in it.

    To use Trumps words, it has been "a complete disaster".

    I'll change my tune as soon as I hear about a potential threat that was stopped by this process that would not have been stopped by the previous process that didn't cause mass outrage and disarray.
    Bottle the partisan acid. You dislike Trump. I get it, and I respect that.

    But, I simply do not understand why you feel that a "list" specifying "Terrorist haven nations" should somehow be changed from one administration to another? I assume the "Obama list" was fact-based. Therefore, I would expect that the new President would respond to those previously verified threats, and not act on premature, contrived whim.

    Really, your argument that the list should have somehow been changed, is bizarre.

    Moreover, IMHO, if Trump had recklessly expanded the identified countries to include a generalized, comprehensive list of suspect nations, containing as they may, substantial Muslim populations, there would be the inevitable accusation of broad-based Muslim bigotry. Because the information base regarding those "excluded nations" is rather incomplete or fragmentary, I think it was wise for Trump to defer identification, and obtain further facts.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; February 6th, 2017 at 12:15 PM.

  15. #75
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    eye roll emoji dot com
    You can roll your eyes and/or clap your hands. The fact of the matter is that compliance is implicit respect for the decision of the judiciary.

    BTW, you never did say why you feel "more unsafe" traveling now that Trump is President. Care to weigh-in?

Page 5 of 272 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 416 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 416 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •