Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Homeland Security refuses to obey court stay.



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:31 pm
So much for the rule of law and checks and balances.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us.....13696

"...In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: "President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."

It added that the department will "continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people."...
Back to top

shyshira




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:34 pm
checks and balances went out the door when Trump decided to govern by executive order. Me thinks, he thinks he's an autocrat.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:39 pm
shyshira wrote:
checks and balances went out the door when Trump decided to govern by executive order. Me thinks, he thinks he's an autocrat.


I'm leaning towards fascist dictator myself. This is pretty unheard of. The President is expected to respect the rule of law and uphold it, not ignore it. This is a pretty hopeless position for the American form of democracy. We now have a president who ignores a legitimate court ruling. And the republicans are all but silent.

I really thought it would take a couple of years before we got to this point.
Back to top

shyshira




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:42 pm
we could end up with an "American spring"..
Back to top

imasinger




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:42 pm
IMO, the sooner he disobeys the Constitution, the sooner he will be impeached.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:45 pm
shyshira wrote:
we could end up with an "American spring"..


That's really dependent on our military.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 5:46 pm
imasinger wrote:
IMO, the sooner he disobeys the Constitution, the sooner he will be impeached.


Republicans (except for 4) are not breaking ranks.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 6:01 pm
Homeland security just issued a statement that they will now comply with the courts order. Someone must have figured out it was a impeachable offense to tell them to disobey.

See how quickly this can happen? How in a minute our democracy can vanish?
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 6:03 pm
But at the same time, Trump has gained support already from Saudi Arabia in establishing safe zones in Syria and Yemen.

The idea of safe zones is to give Syrian refugees a safe place to live in their own region that would be protected by the international community.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 6:13 pm
Laiya wrote:
But at the same time, Trump has gained support already from Saudi Arabia in establishing safe zones in Syria and Yemen.

The idea of safe zones is to give Syrian refugees a safe place to live in their own region that would be protected by the international community.


And we Americans have no way to know what kind of deals he made with the Saudis. Let's face it, it's unlikely that MX will continue to sell us 18% of the oil we need. The Saudis are always ready to step up to the plate. But it's likely we'll never know what really happened. The Saudis do like their immigrant labor, they've got lots of building projects.
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 9:59 pm
shyshira wrote:
checks and balances went out the door when Trump decided to govern by executive order. Me thinks, he thinks he's an autocrat.


Here's the problem with this thread:

Those who are melting down over Trump's executive orders and checks and balances were nowhere to be found when Obama simply declared:
Quote:
We're not just going to be waiting for legislation... I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions.

Obama forced so many things through via executive orders (things like treaties and starting a war in Libya which, Constitutionally, require Congressional approval), and now many of them can be just as easily undone.

Interestingly, Obama was also very active in signing exec orders in his first seek in office, with about the same number as Trump signed in his first week. Oh and Obama's included some hefty funding for the Palestinians.

MagentaYenta wrote:

And we Americans have no way to know what kind of deals he made with the Saudis.

Nor did I recall seeing threads that decried Obama's abuse of power when he made treaties with Iran with all sorts of secret side-deals that were only uncovered later.

So perhaps the current POTUS is using his predecessor as his role model.

It seems the political left and its lapdog the media has lost all credibility by not criticizing this behavior when Democrats do it, and now they have zero credibility when they relentlessly criticize the current POTUS for his every action.

Which is a shame. We need healthy discussion about our politicians' actions. But the current media meltdown is spurred purely by team sport, not by a concern for Constitutionality nor for the well-being of the country.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 29 2017, 10:37 pm
DrMom wrote:
Nor...country.


Snipped for brevity.

I hear you using a lot of dog whistles and name calling but you are still ignoring there was a constitutional crisis today. A very serious one, and only 9 days into the current presidents tenure.

Now you can fling names and pejoratives at me for being a progressive, but again I will remind you that the world saw and reacted to our crisis today. At no point did the president provide an explanation. And only ten from his own party acknowledged his accountability. For goodness sakes The Economist downgraded the US to a flawed democracy today.
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:16 am
MagentaYenta wrote:
Snipped for brevity.

I hear you using a lot of dog whistles and name calling but you are still ignoring there was a constitutional crisis today. A very serious one, and only 9 days into the current presidents tenure.

Now you can fling names and pejoratives at me for being a progressive, but again I will remind you that the world saw and reacted to our crisis today. At no point did the president provide an explanation. And only ten from his own party acknowledged his accountability. For goodness sakes The Economist downgraded the US to a flawed democracy today.

Not sure what you mean by "dog whistles" (which dogs am I calling??) or pejoratives (cite some from my post).

Anyhow, did Obama create a Constitutional crisis when he ordered border patrol agents to not perform their duties? Please refer me to the thread you started to complain about this flagrant violation of the US Constitution.

What about when Obama refused to call the Iran treaty a "treaty" (which, according to that pesky Constitution, would require 2/3 approval from Senate), rebranded it, pushed it through the UN, and then slid by with a slim Congressional approval rate? I don't recall a strong reaction on your part to this Constitutional crisis, not to mention the catastrophic geopolitcal consequences, but feel free to provide me with a link if I am mistaken.

I totally agree that there is an issue here, and it should be explored, but the eruption of anti-Trump threads of late clearly demonstrates that leftist "concern" for the rule of law only seems to apply when a Republican is in office.
Back to top

33055




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 4:38 am
DrMom wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "dog whistles" (which dogs am I calling??) or pejoratives (cite some from my post).

Anyhow, did Obama create a Constitutional crisis when he ordered border patrol agents to not perform their duties? Please refer me to the thread you started to complain about this flagrant violation of the US Constitution.

What about when Obama refused to call the Iran treaty a "treaty" (which, according to that pesky Constitution, would require 2/3 approval from Senate), rebranded it, pushed it through the UN, and then slid by with a slim Congressional approval rate? I don't recall a strong reaction on your part to this Constitutional crisis, not to mention the catastrophic geopolitcal consequences, but feel free to provide me with a link if I am mistaken.

I totally agree that there is an issue here, and it should be explored, but the eruption of anti-Trump threads of late clearly demonstrates that leftist "concern" for the rule of law only seems to apply when a Republican is in office.


I also agree there is an issue here, but the hysteria and vulgarity from the left block the message. The P march totally turned me off from anything they might say. They disgust me so much that I didn't read any articles. Today, I decided to read one article about the protest at Kennedy because I am picking someone up at the airport. The first thing I see is a little foreign boy with a lewd sign referring to the size of our President's genitalia. The rest of the crowd was identifying Muslim or foreign. Who wants this?

You don't make yourself disagreeable and then expect sympathy. Why do we want the same rules of un-law that have taken over Germany? Forget terrorism for a second, but the raping of women and boys and the disrespect have made Germany unsafe for their citizens.

The majority of Americans want border control, and more Americans support this than not. DT's message that we will protect our borders resonates American. One third of Spanish immigrants voted for Trump. They also want to protect what is now theirs.

I don't like everything he does, but the media is as off now as they were during the election. Another story this week was that Trump was afraid of stairs. Why couldn't they have vetted this before they ran it? The anti-Trump crying wolf at every moment desensitizes the population.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 4:45 am
Squishy, DrMom, I'm finding this disconcerting.
Why was Iraq on the list and Saudi Arabia not? How does this religious test work, that Christians are given priority? While it's logical, it is designed for fraud and abuse.
How long has been working on formulating this? Who has advised him on this?
Why should Obama's actions figure in to this?
For sure the US has to be discriminating in whom they let in. But I need a lot more info to feel comfortable with this.
Back to top

wondergirl




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 5:10 am
PinkFridge wrote:
Squishy, DrMom, I'm finding this disconcerting.
Why was Iraq on the list and Saudi Arabia not? How does this religious test work, that Christians are given priority? While it's logical, it is designed for fraud and abuse.
How long has been working on formulating this? Who has advised him on this?
Why should Obama's actions figure in to this?
For sure the US has to be discriminating in whom they let in. But I need a lot more info to feel comfortable with this.

This article may answer some of your questions-- https://sethfrantzman.com/2017.....-you/
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 7:23 am
PinkFridge wrote:
Squishy, DrMom, I'm finding this disconcerting.
Why was Iraq on the list and Saudi Arabia not? How does this religious test work, that Christians are given priority? While it's logical, it is designed for fraud and abuse.
How long has been working on formulating this? Who has advised him on this?
Why should Obama's actions figure in to this?
For sure the US has to be discriminating in whom they let in. But I need a lot more info to feel comfortable with this.


PF, it's not a religious ban.

The listing of countries in the order that Trump signed, cites to prior legislation created by Obama. His administration named those particular countries due to higher risk of terrorist threats from them.

Should also be noted that Carter banned Iranians in 1980, and Obama banned Iraqis for 6 months in 2011. In each case, the concern was national safety.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 7:27 am
PinkFridge wrote:
Squishy, DrMom, I'm finding this disconcerting.
Why was Iraq on the list and Saudi Arabia not? How does this religious test work, that Christians are given priority? While it's logical, it is designed for fraud and abuse.
How long has been working on formulating this? Who has advised him on this?
Why should Obama's actions figure in to this?
For sure the US has to be discriminating in whom they let in. But I need a lot more info to feel comfortable with this.


This is a clear explanation:

- wrote:

Why didn’t Trump place restrictions on immigration/visas from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries?


That’s probably a good idea. But this was actually a judicious and cautious approach from Trump to start with low-hanging fruit. These seven countries are failed states or enemies of the U.S. (in the case of Iran). As such, there is absolutely no way to share data with the host countries and properly vet them. Somalia has been one of the biggest trouble spots. The other countries are marred in Islamic civil wars. Moreover, these are the countries that existing law targets for travel restrictions, and that Obama’s own DHS listed last year.

https://www.conservativereview.....ction
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:22 pm
Laiya wrote:
PF, it's not a religious ban.

The listing of countries in the order that Trump signed, cites to prior legislation created by Obama. His administration named those particular countries due to higher risk of terrorist threats from them.

Should also be noted that Carter banned Iranians in 1980, and Obama banned Iraqis for 6 months in 2011. In each case, the concern was national safety.


Apologies, I have to read this through. I know that it's Christians who are being given priority. Wonder how many more "Christians" will be wanting to leave.
Sorry I can't comment further. I know that Obama had his restrictions, etc. I have to research this more, but am concerned.
Thanks to all for the last two links. I can open them! But no time to read.
Back to top
Page 1 of 1 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Social security number
by amother
4 Today at 11:54 am View last post
9 mo old refuses bottle
by synthy
6 Today at 10:38 am View last post
Help! 1 month old with reflux doesnt stay asleep.
by amother
22 Tue, Mar 19 2024, 11:05 am View last post
Pre tied Tichel’s that stay in place but don’t itch
by amother
0 Mon, Mar 18 2024, 6:32 am View last post
[ Poll ] Security camera/eye
by amother
26 Mon, Mar 11 2024, 9:07 am View last post