Post-Election Analysis

Want to talk about something that doesn't fit into any other forum? This is the place to post your topic for discussion!

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby surfsteve » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:24 pm

BREAKING: Trump Just Ordered Gowdy And Chaffetz Back On Clinton Case To “Go After Everything”
Jason Chaffetz is the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and has just announced that President Donald Trump instructed him and the Committee to pursue every available avenue they deem appropriate. Trump has made it clear that putting the safety of the American people at risk like Hillary did is well deserving of punishment.

https://conservativedailypost.com/hilla ... hing-want/



Remember this?

Hard to believe we almost had that woman for president. She truly belongs in prison!
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby desertrat » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:44 am

surfsteve: I'm not sure about the reliability of this conservativedailypost website. I think they might be pulling things out of their asses just to get people to visit their website. At this point it does not serve Trump's best interests to invest in such a venture, but Trump seems oblivious to the fact that he's digging himself into a pretty deep hole. It's only a matter of time before it collapses on him.
User avatar
desertrat
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby surfsteve » Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:11 pm

I think you are right. If you put conservativedailypost into google a lot of fake suggestions come up. The video I posted is real but doesn't say anything about Trump. If I were Trump I wouldn't open up such a hornets nest until long after I've proved myself. Perhaps just before the statute of limitations is about to run out! On the other hand I don't see anything about him putting the brakes on anything or claiming it is off the table.
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby mrgreen » Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:59 pm

Federal judge halts Trump's travel ban nationwide
Trump is an idiot and like desertrat said, he's digging a pretty deep hole for himself. Add to this his illegal threats regarding Berkeley and it becomes indisputably obvious that the guy has no idea what he's doing. Impeachment due to incompetence might be the end result.
User avatar
mrgreen
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: NO PLACE IN PARTICULAR

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby surfsteve » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:26 am

The judge's order to halt Trumps travel ban is unconstitutional. The judge is mistaking his own opinion of right and wrong for the law. I'm sure Trump expected something like this. If everyone follows suit with this judge, Trump is finished, along with the constitution. I don't think that will happen; otherwise the attempts to prevent him from taking office would have already worked, and he never would have become president in the first place. But you never know!
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby a2z » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:39 pm

surfsteve wrote:The judge's order to halt Trumps travel ban is unconstitutional. The judge is mistaking his own opinion of right and wrong for the law. I'm sure Trump expected something like this. If everyone follows suit with this judge, Trump is finished, along with the constitution. I don't think that will happen; otherwise the attempts to prevent him from taking office would have already worked, and he never would have become president in the first place. But you never know!

Do you seriously believe that Trump knows what is constitutional better than a federal judge? Seriously? Any lawyer who has studied constitutional law realizes that Trump's order was unconstitutional. There might be a few lawyers who will insincerely claim that Trump is in the right, but that's what lawyers sometimes do when they are acting as the devil's advocate. Not that Trump is the devil. Trump is merely a fool.
User avatar
a2z
Cantankerous Mule
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: NYOB

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby Sparky of SoCal » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:10 am

a2z wrote:
surfsteve wrote:The judge's order to halt Trumps travel ban is unconstitutional. The judge is mistaking his own opinion of right and wrong for the law. I'm sure Trump expected something like this. If everyone follows suit with this judge, Trump is finished, along with the constitution. I don't think that will happen; otherwise the attempts to prevent him from taking office would have already worked, and he never would have become president in the first place. But you never know!

Do you seriously believe that Trump knows what is constitutional better than a federal judge? Seriously? Any lawyer who has studied constitutional law realizes that Trump's order was unconstitutional. There might be a few lawyers who will insincerely claim that Trump is in the right, but that's what lawyers sometimes do when they are acting as the devil's advocate. Not that Trump is the devil. Trump is merely a fool.


Another way to look at it is look at existing history and past rulings.

If you don’t like the law, help to get it changed. The people we elect swear to up-hold the laws of this country. To bad many of them forget their oath soon after given. But I forgot. We have become a nation of social justice, so we can change the meaning of any law based upon the whim of the day.










McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952

Wouldn't it be interesting if, someone asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?

I did not know of this Act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.

Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims).

The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.

Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, Surprise, Surprise!" It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States .

The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

Who do you suppose last used this process?

It was president Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States .

But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States , check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them.

Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should be refused immigration to OUR country.

Authenticated at:
Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952
library.uwb.edu
US immigration legislation online : 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,
a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act (An act to revise the laws relating to immigration ...
Sparky of SoCal
Cantankerous Mule
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:19 am

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby ergot » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:27 am

Sparky of SoCal: There is no valid comparison to current conditions and what existed back in 1979. Currently we have low level concerns in a number of countries. Back in 1979 we had a very specific and severe set of concerns and Carter properly exercised his authority within constitutional constraints. Trump is way out of line with the current travel ban. Personally it doesn't bother me a bit, but in legal terms he has clearly over-stepped his authority and the judge had no other choice but to apply the law in a rational and sober manner. The McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952 may give the president a lot of discretion, but it doesn't allow him to behave in the manner of an authoritarian dictator and to totally disregard the Constitution. The Judiciary Branch exists in part of reign in presidents who disregard the Constitution and Trump obviously slept through his high school civics class! LOL
User avatar
ergot
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:58 am
Location: Le monde aliéné

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby surfsteve » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:51 am

Hmm. Even "The Judge" agrees the Muslim ban is unconstitutional.

Though from what I've read it wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a ban from a few Muslim countries that Obama already declared to be dangerous because they did not screen properly. I'm not going to dig it up but I read that the president had full authority to ban immigrants from such countries. Had it been a ban on the "Muslim religion" it would have been unconstitutional but there were many Muslim countries that Trump did not ban because he questionably stated that they already had a reliable screening process in place of which the countries he banned did not.
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: Post-Election Analysis

Postby surfsteve » Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:54 pm

This country was founded on free speech and religious freedom. To discriminate against a religion would go against the very fabric of that. Religion is and has always been a system of belief. Nowhere in the definition of religion is the right to kill and destroy another because their beliefs don't coincide with yours. To do so is just as bad as yelling fire in a crowded theater and calling it free speech. Calling a terrorist a Muslim or harboring one in the name of your religion exceeds the definition of religion that this country was founded upon and should not be tolerated by anyone. Especially by those calling themselves religious Muslims or otherwise.
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Prehistoric Fossil
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

PreviousNext

Return to News and Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 115 guests

cron