Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 103

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

This will only serve as a constant reminder of the world we now find ourselves in.

Paris to put up glass wall to protect Eiffel Tower
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38923411

I can’t help but feel saddened this is necessary. It robs the world of romance as bureaucracy and terror strive to rule the day.

Unless I’m reading this wrong there’s already a wall around it (a metal one) and this one will actually look a lot better?

Yes, though the metal fence was only put up in the last half of last year, my point still stands. Instead of an image of temporary fear, this one is more permanent.

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

[slams head into desk repeatedly]

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

[slams head into desk repeatedly]

Don’t worry Frink… it’s Reuters so I’m sure DT will confirm that it’s fake news.

Oddly enough …

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/9/14562014/trump-putin-call-new-start-what

Here is a blurb from almost the same identical article …

“presuming it’s accurate (both Rohde and Landay are skilled veterans of the national-security beat, and the White House has declined to comment on the report both to Reuters and when asked during a subsequent press briefing).”

Here is something that should make you Trump haters happy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/anne-mahlum-solidcore-founder-suggests-first-daugh/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/09/obama-white-house-photographer-trolling-trump-instagram/97687146/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/us/arizona-guadalupe-garcia-de-rayos-protests/index.html

ICE: Case worked its way through system.

ICE officials, however, said the case had been working its way through the system and that the time for Garcia de Rayos to be deported had come. “Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.,” ICE said in a statement. “ICE will continue to focus on identifying and removing individuals with felony convictions who have final orders of removal issued by the nation’s immigration courts.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/09/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban-immigration-refugee-muslim-president/97644206/

A federal appeals court Thursday refused to let President Trump reinstitute a temporary ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, ruling that the executive order violates due process rights of people affected without a justifiable national security basis.

The quick, unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit could lead to a showdown at the Supreme Court, unless the administration agrees to dial back the travel ban or try its case before a federal judge in Seattle who ordered it stopped last week.

The Justice Department was reviewing the decision Thursday evening, but Trump indicated more appeals are coming.

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” he tweeted minutes after the ruling was released.

The three-judge panel said that the president’s claim of ultimate authority over foreign policy was inadequate. “Although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” they said.

What would be even better than the Supreme Court dealing the death blow would be if they refused to even hear the case.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Jetrell Fo said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/us/arizona-guadalupe-garcia-de-rayos-protests/index.html

ICE: Case worked its way through system.

ICE officials, however, said the case had been working its way through the system and that the time for Garcia de Rayos to be deported had come. “Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.,” ICE said in a statement. “ICE will continue to focus on identifying and removing individuals with felony convictions who have final orders of removal issued by the nation’s immigration courts.”

Wait, I thought CNN was fake news?

I saw the story on the news first and it reported the same facts. Is that a problem?

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Here is something that should make you Trump haters happy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/anne-mahlum-solidcore-founder-suggests-first-daugh/

I’m dubious she could anonymously join a workout gym and not be recognized. And the headline is a tad misleading to begin with. She seems to want a dialog with Ivnaka, not show her the door.

Why make it public then?

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Here is something that should make you Trump haters happy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/anne-mahlum-solidcore-founder-suggests-first-daugh/

I’m dubious she could anonymously join a workout gym and not be recognized. And the headline is a tad misleading to begin with. She seems to want a dialog with Ivnaka, not show her the door.

Why make it public then?

Unless I’m reading it wrong, she was responding to reports Ivanka was using her gym. She didn’t break the story, someone already knew about it.

I believe the story originated from the FB posts she made about it.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

https://twitter.com/ProduKtJRG/status/829839180897406977?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

@realDonaldTrump you have over 3000 pending lawsuits. Everyone has seen you in court.

Hey look at that, words mean things.

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Here is something that should make you Trump haters happy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/anne-mahlum-solidcore-founder-suggests-first-daugh/

I’m dubious she could anonymously join a workout gym and not be recognized. And the headline is a tad misleading to begin with. She seems to want a dialog with Ivnaka, not show her the door.

Why make it public then?

Unless I’m reading it wrong, she was responding to reports Ivanka was using her gym. She didn’t break the story, someone already knew about it.

I believe the story originated from the FB posts she made about it.

Ok. I’m not spelunking into the Facebook abyss to look for it. Why Ivanka wants to use a public gym when she probably can use one on any Trump property for free makes little sense. Even third tier celebs can’t scratch their butt in public without the paparazzi finding out. She was bound to be recognized sooner or later.

It might be a violation of a gym’s terms of service to sign up under a fake name anyway?

I didn’t expect you to, it says it in the article anyways. Maybe the class she took was recommended by someone. We don’t get that part of the story. I just feel that the owner really didn’t have any reason to publicize the issue any. Unless she’s using it as a marketing tool for her gym in some way alongside a political angle. That is all I can figure.

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

https://twitter.com/ProduKtJRG/status/829839180897406977?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

@realDonaldTrump you have over 3000 pending lawsuits. Everyone has seen you in court.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/829846842150096896

I’m no Hillary fan, but brutal.

Here’s the full decision:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf

Here’s an important bit from it:

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.

Of course what is overlooked is the fact that the list was created during and by the Obama administration. I am not in favor of a Muslim Ban. I do think our vetting system is broken when it comes to obtaining real information for the investigations they use for vetting.

TV’s Frink said:

Hey look at that, words mean things.

Only when they suit the agenda of the person making such an observation.

😉

Tyrphanax said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

https://twitter.com/ProduKtJRG/status/829839180897406977?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

@realDonaldTrump you have over 3000 pending lawsuits. Everyone has seen you in court.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/829846842150096896

I’m no Hillary fan, but brutal.

Here’s the full decision:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf

Here’s an important bit from it:

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.

Of course what is overlooked is the fact that the list was created during and by the Obama administration. I am not in favor of a Muslim Ban. I do think our vetting system is broken when it comes to obtaining real information for the investigations they use for vetting.

Creating a list of countries to keep an eye on because they are of greater risk than others for terrorist threats and taking steps towards creating a ban against people from predominantly Muslim countries are two very different things.

Reminds me of how Trump and Hillary were supposedly basically the same. Um, no, they’re two very different things.

Tyrphanax said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

https://twitter.com/ProduKtJRG/status/829839180897406977?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

@realDonaldTrump you have over 3000 pending lawsuits. Everyone has seen you in court.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/829846842150096896

I’m no Hillary fan, but brutal.

Here’s the full decision:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf

Here’s an important bit from it:

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.

Of course what is overlooked is the fact that the list was created during and by the Obama administration. I am not in favor of a Muslim Ban. I do think our vetting system is broken when it comes to obtaining real information for the investigations they use for vetting.

Creating a list of countries to keep an eye on because they are of greater risk than others for terrorist threats and taking steps towards creating a ban against people from predominantly Muslim countries are two very different things.

Something else not accounted for. The FBI has already stated publicly that large numbers of these refugees aren’t even native to said countries on the list they say they come from so they cannot get the proper information to clear them via the process.