Thread: President Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

UN Travel ban list.

How would this justify anything? Need UN permission or some shit?

I'm assuming the UN used intelligence from the US and others to decide which individuals were a threat.

And the Whitehouse deemed that the intelligence was correct. It also keeps the US in step with its allies.

I would call that a justification.

Get ready for some serious Trump twattering, when he finds out that Parliament will be discussing the petition to downgrade his State Visit to just a "fat stupid seppo tourist photographing Buckingham Palace between the railings" on 20th February.

Must find a link to BBC Parliament, that should be a fucking hoot, parliamentary privilege and all.

"I understand the honorary member for Dorking and Sutton thinks President Trump is a urine-stained pissflap, however....."

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Hasn't it already been challenged in the courts?

The court challenges are the reason that Yates was fired and replaced with a Trump lackey at DOJ until Sessions is confirmed.

Several states and the ACLU are suing the government over the ban.

Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states | Reuters

Yates was fired for refusing to enforce Trumps executive order temporarily stopping travel to the US from seven countries, it was her choice and it was a political statement it had nothing to do with court challenges,she disagreed with Trump and refused to do her job.


Why Sally Yates Was Fired: Insubordination | National Review

She refused to obey an Executive order that is unconstitutional.

Just like she told Jeff Sessions when he asked her if she would do that, at her confirmation hearing.

The AG or Dep. AG has an OBLIGATION to uphold the law and the constitution, you stupid fuck.

The constitutionality of the order is yet to be clarified as such if she doesn't perform the duties as directed by the president there is cause for dismissal, it is called insubordination. She let her personal beliefs get in the way of doing her job.

For someone as dim as you,you are sure quick to call names, maybe you could post a link as to the fact the directive violated the constitution.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yates was fired for refusing to enforce Trumps executive order

In the face of legal challenges. Which is exactly what I said you moron.

Legal challenges not a Supreme Court ruling, as I told Harry she let her personal beliefs get in the way of her job, bye,bye Yates.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Legal challenges not a Supreme Court ruling

Do you have a swelling on your brain? Legal challenges go up through the Federal court system ultimately ending up in the supreme court. Which many are predicting will happen with some of these. Do the simplest concepts need to be explained to you?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Legal challenges not a Supreme Court ruling

Do you have a swelling on your brain? Legal challenges go up through the Federal court system ultimately ending up in the supreme court. Which many are predicting will happen with some of these. Do the simplest concepts need to be explained to you?

That is true but until such time it is not proven to be violating the constitution,many are predicting means absolutely nothing as far as the legality, many are also predicting his orders are within the bounds of the constitution.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The constitutionality of the order is yet to be clarified as such if she doesn't perform the duties as directed by the president there is cause for dismissal, it is called insubordination. She let her personal beliefs get in the way of doing her job.

No, she felt the executive order was not constitutional and made an ethical decision not to support it. Firing her was the act of a petty despot.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Of course in your view any order that Bannon puts in a leather folder and Drumph signs is consecrated in heaven.

This utter nonsense from the guy who sits around calling other people stupid.....

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Hasn't it already been challenged in the courts?

The court challenges are the reason that Yates was fired and replaced with a Trump lackey at DOJ until Sessions is confirmed.

Several states and the ACLU are suing the government over the ban.

Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states | Reuters

Yates was fired for refusing to enforce Trumps executive order temporarily stopping travel to the US from seven countries, it was her choice and it was a political statement it had nothing to do with court challenges,she disagreed with Trump and refused to do her job.


Why Sally Yates Was Fired: Insubordination | National Review

She refused to obey an Executive order that is unconstitutional.

Just like she told Jeff Sessions when he asked her if she would do that, at her confirmation hearing.

The AG or Dep. AG has an OBLIGATION to uphold the law and the constitution, you stupid fuck.

The constitutionality of the order is yet to be clarified as such if she doesn't perform the duties as directed by the president there is cause for dismissal, it is called insubordination. She let her personal beliefs get in the way of doing her job.

For someone as dim as you,you are sure quick to call names, maybe you could post a link as to the fact the directive violated the constitution.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't have a fucking clue what is in the constitution.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The constitutionality of the order is yet to be clarified as such if she doesn't perform the duties as directed by the president there is cause for dismissal, it is called insubordination. She let her personal beliefs get in the way of doing her job.

No, she felt the executive order was not constitutional and made an ethical decision not to support it. Firing her was the act of a petty despot.

Believe what you like,I will just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Humbert

The court challenges are the reason that Yates was fired and replaced with a Trump lackey at DOJ until Sessions is confirmed.

Several states and the ACLU are suing the government over the ban.

Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states | Reuters

Yates was fired for refusing to enforce Trumps executive order temporarily stopping travel to the US from seven countries, it was her choice and it was a political statement it had nothing to do with court challenges,she disagreed with Trump and refused to do her job.


Why Sally Yates Was Fired: Insubordination | National Review

She refused to obey an Executive order that is unconstitutional.

Just like she told Jeff Sessions when he asked her if she would do that, at her confirmation hearing.

The AG or Dep. AG has an OBLIGATION to uphold the law and the constitution, you stupid fuck.

The constitutionality of the order is yet to be clarified as such if she doesn't perform the duties as directed by the president there is cause for dismissal, it is called insubordination. She let her personal beliefs get in the way of doing her job.

For someone as dim as you,you are sure quick to call names, maybe you could post a link as to the fact the directive violated the constitution.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't have a fucking clue what is in the constitution.

I have a pretty good understanding of what is in the constitution your problem is you interpret the constitution as fits your personal beliefs.

Here's my favorite part about the immigration ban.....

Trump's jackasses keep repeating it's from a list of suspect countries from the Obama administration.

Is Trump's team too lazy to form their own conclusions? Could Trump have learned something as the president elect security briefings he blew off? Obama was wrong about everything, but he picked the right countries?

After all, is Trump right and the 900 career State department people who've signed a cable against his immigration order right? Considering Trump's experience in handling international policy, I'm guessing the department that's his "outreach" program to other countries might ought to have a say....

But I'm just an ignorant libtard, snowflake...carry on...

Trump's supreme court nominee sounded intelligence in his acceptance speech. It was pretty refreshing considering what's been behind the podium lately.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I have a pretty good understanding of what is in the constitution your problem is you interpret the constitution as fits your personal beliefs.

Well if you understood the Constitution you would understand why Yates questioned the legality of the Executive Order.... which, in case your Alzheimers kicked in, I'll remind you WAS HER FUCKING JOB.

so, humbert and cssfan,

if trump had done a "muslim ban" and banned travel from all muslim countries, then doubt anyone would disagree with you two.

though, which of these countries

---Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen---

do you think there is not a hotbed of terrorist activity and therefore there shouldn't be extreme vetting like now (some are let through after the "extreme vetting" is finished" like hundreds were the last few days)?

i would agree with iran (though that would be controversial) and

let's be honest, with a mainstream media so hostile to trump, if there were a terror attack in the future, they'd find a way to blame him.

so, IMO, trump might as well do his job to protect america from the types of attacks that have happened in europe and ignore the mainstream media.

I am looking forward to his UK visit.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

protect america from the types of attacks that have happened in europe and ignore the mainstream media.

It seems like the current policies that were in place did a good job, considering the amount of foreign terrorists executing operations in the US in support of jihad.

As I've said before, I'm not against Trump taking time to review vetting procedures, but to institute policy without forethought as to how the implementation would affect travellers in transit, green card holders, foreign nationals that have provided assistance to the US will only damage relations with allies and just piss off Congress in my opinion is breathtakingly stupid.

900 State dept employees have signed a letter opposing the policy. Courts across the country are instituting temporary relief from the ban, along with mass protests in both America and from foreign leaders.

Trump is acting more like a dictator, by ruling by decree.

But my best laugh yet is Trump blaming the country choice on Obama. I'm guessing Obama didn't have a hand in writing the president's latest missive or developing the supporting rational.

The bottom line is that Bannon shoved this in front of Trump and told him the trumpkins would love him for it ... and the trumpkins are wanking themselves silly.

However, he not only ignored legal counsel, but deliberately avoided running it past the affected departments.

Hence the shitstorm and the legal challenge.

This is testing the waters to see what they can get away with; if they tie up the courts with challenges to repeated nonsense like this, imagine what else they will try and get away with.

You stupid, stupid trumpkins.

You haven't got a fucking clue.

I think when he said "I love the poorly educated" you were too fucking stupid to ask why.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

As I've said before, I'm not against Trump taking time to review vetting procedures, but to institute policy without forethought

fair enough and agree that it wasn't implemented correctly.

trump says he didn't want to tip off the "terrorists" and i don't doubt he's genuine in thinking that (whether he was wrong to think that is another matter).

i think obama was wrong to use the drone program for assassination purposes, including killing innocent family members of the target, though it was in his powers.

anyways, trump campaigned on the issue and therefore has a mandate to implement it, IMO. a politician fulfilling promises ain't such a bad thing.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The bottom line is that Bannon shoved this in front of Trump

During the campaign...

In Trump's defense, it was a campaign promise he's kept. There's no doubt about that....

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

However, he not only ignored legal counsel, but deliberately avoided running it past the affected departments.

Hence the shitstorm and the legal challenge.

Or really any consul outside of Bannon's and Trump's voice Stephen Miller.

Stephen Miller: From campaign hype-man to Oval Office influence - CNNPolitics.com

That's what Trump is giving America....

Was listening to Hank Crumpton speaking on the radio yesterday. He has been involved in security all his life for various administrations, and he said that the majority of our terrorist intel has come from Muslim countries. The Trumpster Team has now managed to piss those countries off, reducing the ability to get good information.

Originally Posted by thailazer

and he said that the majority of our terrorist intel has come from Muslim countries. The Trumpster Team has now managed to piss those countries off, reducing the ability to get good information.

and that was one reason quoted in the State department opposition letter.....

Don't you just love The Donald.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2h
2 hours ago

Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!