TV’s Frink said:

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.

They’re both clowns, that makes them the same in my book.

Sauron may be untouchable on this particular issue, but the Mouth of Sauron may not be.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nordstrom-ivanka-trump-idUSKBN15O1V4

A Congressional committee said on Thursday it was seeking a review into whether senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway had violated ethics rules by using her position to promote product lines of President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, a day after he attacked a retailer for dropping them.

Federal ethics rules prohibit executive branch employees from using their positions to endorse products or for the private gain of friends. The law does not apply to the president.

“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff … I’m going to go get some myself today,” Conway told Fox News in an interview from the White House. “I’m going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody.”

Republican Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House of Representatives Oversight committee, said late on Thursday in a statement he had agreed to a request by a member of the panel to ask the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to review Conway’s comments and recommend disciplinary action against her if warranted.

Chaffetz and Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, said in their letter to the ethics office: "Conway’s statements appear to violate federal ethics regulations, which prohibit actions that imply a government endorsement of the ‘personal activities’ of another person.”

"In this case, there is an additional challenge, which is that the president, as the ultimate disciplinary authority for White House employees, has an inherent conflict of interest since Conway’s statements relate to his daughter’s private business,” they said.

Tyrphanax said:

Jetrell Fo said:

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.

That’s exactly what the Obama-era bills did: applied greater scrutiny to visas and travelers to and from the seven countries named, whether they were from that country or not, whether they were from a country with a visa waiver or not (so someone from the US or Canada traveling to Syria or Yemen would be watched more closely upon trying to enter the US). It didn’t try to ban people outright based on their citizenship (or perhaps religion, if taken far enough) like Trump’s Executive Order would.

What Tyr said. also, yes, vetting refugees is tough, we all should know this by now. being a refugee is even tougher. they are hard to vet, precisely because their lives have been destroyed so completely. it is sad that most refugees never leave refugee camps. many are born in them, grow up in them, and die in them. its a shitty world, and Trump trying to ban them is the shittiest.

With the FBI still having 1,000 open investigations on the books (which has also been made public and mentioned by me numerous times) makes it just as tough and those were set up based on the previous administrations policy.

Don’t you think we should finish getting these investigations finished before creating a far bigger back log?

I feel horrible for the refugees as well. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be them. It’s not their fault that their numbers are infiltrated by those that only care about harming people. They blend in to gain the communities trust but all the while their reason for coming is far different from those who want a new and safe life. I get that. I guess this administration wants to vet them before they hit U.S. soil and not after.

Some of you talk like this is such an easy fix by blaming it on Trump and wanting to oust him for it. He’s inherited the previous administrations baggage left behind just as each President before him has while wanting to do what he can. Is he perfect, are any of us actually perfect, no. There is plenty of finger pointing to go around if we really want to get down to it in this and every other country on the planet.

There is no exacting and clear solution especially if some people want action right now. It’s only going to get more fecked up if things aren’t done as properly as they can be and in a timely enough manner. We do not live in the 50’s anymore. We live in a Digital Burger King era. Everyone wants everything their way right away as fast as possible. There is no regard for the consequences of this mentality.

Trump’s stupid wall just keeps getting stupider.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN

President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Tyrphanax said:

Jetrell Fo said:

With the FBI still having 1,000 open investigations on the books (which has also been made public and mentioned by me numerous times) makes it just as tough and those were set up based on the previous administrations policy.

Don’t you think we should finish getting these investigations finished before creating a far bigger back log?

I looked for a while tonight and couldn’t find an article about thousands of open investigations at the FBI… on immigrants? On potential immigrants? If you have a link, I’ll take a look at it (bonus points if it’s from the FBI itself). But if the FBI is suspicious of someone, I assume the case stays open until they find solid evidence one way or another. It’s tough to close a case (and I’d say that’s a good thing), especially if the person you’re suspicious about hasn’t really shown up on the radar yet.

I can give you this …

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/fbi-terror-ahmad-khan-rahami.html?_r=0

And a blurb from it …

The threat has only grown since Sept. 11, 2001, and more recently with the rise of the Islamic State. In recent years, the F.B.I. has averaged 10,000 assessments annually, and 7,000 to 10,000 preliminary or full investigations involving international terrorism. In addition, the F.B.I. receives tens of thousands of terrorism tips. All of those have to be tracked down, as in the case involving Mr. Rahami. That does not include information the F.B.I. learns from foreign partners, war zones or American agencies. Most investigations never end in prosecution.

In the meantime, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department have prosecuted more than 100 cases involving the Islamic State. Officials say those are the cases that the public tends to overlook, as well as all the other plots they have stopped.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/obama-administration-fails-to-check-immigrants-aga/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2017/jan/27/donald-trump-says-fbi-investigating-more-people-ev/

And Trump’s stupid attorney general is on board with spreading Trump’s stupid (and easily disproved) lies. In this case, the “skyrocketing” crime rate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-trump-administrations-illusory-answers-to-imaginary-problems/516162/

Here is what’s happening in my hometown.

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-milwaukee-arrests-16-during-operation-targeting-criminal-aliens

Amazing tweet from the so-called President that will probably fly under the radar because it’s not terribly sexy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830042498806460417?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

LAWFARE: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this (the) statute.” A disgraceful decision!

I had to go searching for this comment but found it partway through this article.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion

Here’s the full paragraph.

Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3©, 5©, and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

First off, I’d love to know if the completely unnecessary “(the)” was in the original published article and then edited out, or if Trump added it himself. Unimportant but pretty funny if Trump added it. But more importantly, Trump didn’t bother to quote any of the rest of the article, such as

The Ninth Circuit is correct to leave the TRO in place, in my view, for the simple reason that there is no cause to plunge the country into turmoil again while the courts address the merits of these matters over the next few weeks.

Or

But it’s worth emphasizing that the grounds on which this order was fought are not the grounds on which the merits fight will happen. Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.

“Incompetent malevolence” seems like it sums up the administration perfectly so far.

U.S. politics can’t be take it seriously because the focus is on left vs right extremes, there’s no logical, middle ground explored.

Jesus Christ, is he trolling? An idiot? Suffering from dementia? All of the above?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830047626414477312

The failing @nytimes does major FAKE NEWS China story saying “Mr.Xi has not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov.14.” We spoke at length yesterday!

Here’s the story.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=64895635&pgtype=Homepage&_r=0

President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy, reversing his earlier expressions of doubt about the longtime diplomatic understanding and removing a major source of tension between the United States and China since shortly after he was elected.

In a statement, the White House said Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi “discussed numerous topics, and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our One China policy.” It described the call as “extremely cordial” and said the leaders had invited each other to visit.

The concession was clearly designed to put an end to an extended chill in the relationship between China and the United States. Mr. Xi, stung by Mr. Trump’s unorthodox telephone call with the president of Taiwan in December and his subsequent assertion that the United States might no longer abide by the One China policy, had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

had not spoken

HAD NOT SPOKEN

TV’s Frink said:

Jesus Christ, is he trolling? An idiot? Suffering from dementia? All of the above?

well we can rule out the first one. i wasn’t sure for quite a while, but i think we can now safely say that Donald Trump is not, in fact, Jesus Christ.

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jesus Christ, is he trolling? An idiot? Suffering from dementia? All of the above?

well we can rule out the first one. i wasn’t sure for quite a while, but i think we can now safely say that Donald Trump is not, in fact, Jesus Christ.

He could never have been because if I remember my Bible reading correctly, Jesus was not a white guy, LOL.

Jetrell Fo said:

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jesus Christ, is he trolling? An idiot? Suffering from dementia? All of the above?

well we can rule out the first one. i wasn’t sure for quite a while, but i think we can now safely say that Donald Trump is not, in fact, Jesus Christ.

He could never have been because if I remember my Bible reading correctly, Jesus was not a white guy, LOL.

I guess i was confused by his spray tan

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

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

They’re both clowns, that makes them the same in my book.

False Equivalence™

Religious Interpretation™

😉

doubleofive said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jesus Christ, is he trolling? An idiot? Suffering from dementia? All of the above?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830047626414477312

The failing @nytimes does major FAKE NEWS China story saying “Mr.Xi has not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov.14.” We spoke at length yesterday!

Here’s the story.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=64895635&pgtype=Homepage&_r=0

President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy, reversing his earlier expressions of doubt about the longtime diplomatic understanding and removing a major source of tension between the United States and China since shortly after he was elected.

In a statement, the White House said Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi “discussed numerous topics, and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our One China policy.” It described the call as “extremely cordial” and said the leaders had invited each other to visit.

The concession was clearly designed to put an end to an extended chill in the relationship between China and the United States. Mr. Xi, stung by Mr. Trump’s unorthodox telephone call with the president of Taiwan in December and his subsequent assertion that the United States might no longer abide by the One China policy, had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

had not spoken

HAD NOT SPOKEN

Apparently the print edition of the NYT doesn’t mention the call he made yesterday, which makes sense.

Ah, ok.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-nytimes-rebuke-china-story-234895

Trump, known to prefer reading printed newspapers, likely based his Twitter complaint on the edition of the Times delivered Friday morning in Washington, which read that Chinese President Xi Jinping had not spoken to Trump since Nov. 14 because he was upset with the U.S. president’s rebuke of the “one China” policy. In Washington, the story was headlined “China’s president, stung by Taiwan call, is said to shun Trump.”

A later edition of Friday’s New York Times, as well as the online version, details a Thursday night conversation between Trump and Xi in which the U.S. president agreed that he would honor the longstanding “one China” policy that officially recognizes the Chinese government in Beijing, not the one in Taiwan.

The later edition of the newspaper also carried a new headline, “After silence from Xi, Trump endorses the ‘one China’ policy.” Online, the story was headlined “Trump tells Xi Jinping U.S. will honor ‘one China’ policy.”

Mark Landler, one of the Times reporters who authored the story in question, defended it on Twitter against Trump’s criticism. Linking to the president’s Twitter post, Landler wrote that “we reported accurately that Xi wouldn’t talk to POTUS without One China pledge. Updated story when he did just that.”

Thank god we have a so-called president who lashes out immediately instead of being rational. Exactly what we need.

Hahahaha.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-ethics-agency-site-crashes-day-trump-adviser-plugs-ivanka-n719111

The website of the Office of Government Ethics, or OGE — a federal agency whose job it is to help presidents and the executive branch avoid conflicts of interest — crashed Thursday because of “an extraordinary volume of contacts from citizens about recent events.”

While the OGE didn’t specify the “recent events” in the five tweets it posted on its Twitter feed, the computer crash came as President Donald Trump’s trusted counselor was hit with criticism for plugging Ivanka Trump’s clothing line on a television show.

TV’s Frink said:

Trump’s stupid wall just keeps getting stupider.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN

President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

and that is not counting all the maintenance that will be needed in future years and the cost of having people man the wall(if it isn’t manned, what would stop people from getting ladders and such and climbing over the wall?). Please tell me again, what is to stop people from tunneling under the wall?