caulfield12

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-defian...-100042667.html Now Syria's Assad is piggybacking on Trump and claiming 13,000 weren't killed/tortured...it's all FAKE news. I love how so many are acting like there is no immigration vetting process in place now...and that it's not one of the most stringent in the world. Good god.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 08:11 AM) 1) The Us Protects minority groups with refugees in general 2) You don't bring in minors without their parents 3) The list comes from President Obama 4) It's not unconstitutional, the 9th district did not rule on it's constitutionality 5) The nuclear option won't happen in time nor will it be necessary. As you all were wrong with the election you are all wrong thinking that this will be anything but in favor of the President. I have more faith in the liberals on the Courts than you liberals here. 6) The 11,000,000 are all criminals. Not just 800,000. You tell that it's ok to those families that have lost loved ones thanks to the crime of illegals. So far, greatest President ever. He made promises and he's keeping them at lightning speed including fixing our healthcare not just dismantling it like every single liberal though he'd do. Nobody in America likes separating families, especially green card/permanent resident families. Obama's list was never intended to be used as a comprehensive travel ban. If the case was allowed to back to District Court for discovery, the odds of winning are currently 1-2%. Trump's ego won't allow Gorsuch being blocked for long...and there's no way (in the current political climate) he peels off 8 Dems to get to 60. At best, he gets Manchin from WV. Go after 8-11 million people at once and you'll be blocked by half the states in the country in the courts. You might have 25% of the country agreeing...and the economic impact would be over $1 trillion. The sheer number of agents to go house to house and forcibly round up that many people would be astronomical.

Of course the universally-accepted number is 6 million. Ironic they don't even have their history correct.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 06:44 AM) I do, it's not, it's a ban for a short period of time from 7 countries. It is not a ban on Muslims. 90% of the foreign Muslims are under no such EO. Just stop, please folks, I know you don't like anything that helps America. Please just stop. Here's the problem. If he hadn't spoken to Giuliani and asked for him to help craft a "Muslim ban," if he hadn't tried to protect Christians in those countries from "reverse discrimination," if he hadn't excluded green card holders/permanent residents who had already gone through the EXTENSIVE vetting process, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If children under 18, those needing immediate medical care and all those working/studying in the US weren't part of this, then he would at least have a legitimate argument. As it stands, there was no compelling threat to the security of the country (at least that we know of)... and there NEVER has been a deadly attack inside the US from a citizen of any of those 7 countries, while there were lots of European and Middle Eastern countries more clearly connected to terrorism that were left off the list. If he hadn't chosen to directly attack the judicial branch and basically DARE them to stand in his path, we might not be here. And it's doubtful that two Republican judicial appointees (one in Washington, one part of the 3 judge appellate court) would have blocked the order as unconstitutional. Saying that the opposition "is against anything that helps America" is just another version of "so-called judge," questioning the former Attorney General's patriotism, and then calling any decision that goes against you "political" despite the fact that 2 of the 4 judges who have gotten in the way since last weekend have been Republican appointees. If all four were Democratically-appointed, that would be one thing. Of course, the GOP will still argue the Western District is the most liberal of all and that such a decision isn't a surprise, but Trump will always have an excuse. What will the excuse be if the Supreme Court unanimously goes against him? He'll probably get 3 out of 8 votes, but there's no way they will let him fundamentally disrespect the entire rationale for our checks and balances system. If they jam through Gorsuch using the nuclear option and try to get the case into his hands with the hope the SC will overturn on appeal, then the well will have been poisoned completely in terms of anyone trusting the fairness of our system after Merrick Garland was blocked for nearly a year. If that happens, just for Trump to prove a point that he never loses, it will be a shame for our country and the impact will be lasting. All Trump has to do is improve the ACA, stay out of Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security (as he promised numerous times as a candidate in 2015), and come up with some type of compromise on immigration reform/Dreamers. Heck, 90+% of Americans would agree with sending those convicted of felonies who are illegally in the US back to their home countries and creating severe penalties for (getting caught) returning. It's roughly 800,000 people, but, instead....he has to threaten to evict 8-11,000,000 and throw the country into total chaos and protest when it's not even necessary.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 06:44 AM) I do, it's not, it's a ban for a short period of time from 7 countries. It is not a ban on Muslims. 90% of the foreign Muslims are under no such EO. Just stop, please folks, I know you don't like anything that helps America. Please just stop. Here's the problem. If he hadn't spoken to Giuliani and asked for him to help craft a "Muslim ban," if he hadn't tried to protect Christians in those countries from "reverse discrimination," if he hadn't excluded green card holders/permanent residents who had already gone through the EXTENSIVE vetting process, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If children under 18, those needing immediate medical care and all those working/studying in the US weren't part of this, then he would at least have a legitimate argument. As it stands, there was no compelling threat to the security of the country (at least that we know of)... and there NEVER has been a deadly attack inside the US from a citizen of any of those 7 countries, while there were lots of European and Middle Eastern countries more clearly connected to terrorism that were left off the list. If he hadn't chosen to directly attack the judicial branch and basically DARE them to stand in his path, we might not be here. And it's doubtful that two Republican judicial appointees (one in Washington, one part of the 3 judge appellate court) would have blocked the order as unconstitutional. Saying that the opposition "is against anything that helps America" is just another version of "so-called judge," questioning the former Attorney General's patriotism, and then calling any decision that goes against you "political" despite the fact that 2 of the 4 judges who have gotten in the way since last weekend have been Republican appointees. If all four were Democratically-appointed, that would be one thing. Of course, the GOP will still argue the Western District is the most liberal of all and that such a decision isn't a surprise, but Trump will always have an excuse. What will the excuse be if the Supreme Court unanimously goes against him? He'll probably get 3 out of 8 votes, but there's no way they will let him fundamentally disrespect the entire rationale for our checks and balances system. If they jam through Gorsuch using the nuclear option and try to get the case into his hands with the hope the SC will overturn on appeal, then the well will have been poisoned completely in terms of anyone trusting the fairness of our system after Merrick Garland was blocked for nearly a year. If that happens, just for Trump to prove a point that he never loses, it will be a shame for our country and the impact will be lasting. All Trump has to do is improve the ACA, stay out of Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security (as he promised numerous times as a candidate in 2015), and come up with some type of compromise on immigration reform/Dreamers. Heck, 90+% of Americans would agree with sending those convicted of felonies who are illegally in the US back to their home countries and creating severe penalties for (getting caught) returning. It's roughly 800,000 people, but, instead....he has to threaten to evict 8-11,000,000 and throw the country into total chaos and protest when it's not even necessary.

"His Palm Beach club Mar-a-Lago doubled its initiation fee, while Sean Spicer, his press secretary, has labeled it "the Winter White House." The CEO of his hotels business pondered a threefold expansion. Foreign dignitaries are flocking to his Washington hotel. He urged British officials to scuttle a wind farm that would obstruct the view from his golf course. Lawyers for first lady Melania Trump claimed in a New York State libel suit that a Daily Mail article about her cost her the chance “to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multimillion-dollar business relationships." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trum...s-family-234874

The Democratic Party might not even have to obstruct if Trump keeps up his assault on members of his own party and the courts/judicial system. We're getting to the point where EVERYTHING is going to be tied up in courts...anything to do with immigration and sanctuary cities, repealing the ACA (especially when it comes to proposed cuts to Medicaid/Medicare), conflicts of interest/ethics, election & voter fraud/Russian intervention, etc. The blueprint was already laid by the various conservative organizations that sued to stop Obama "from abusing his authority" on immigration. State AG's are quickly learning that they are better positioned to stop the president than the more symbolic efforts of the US Senate. It's yet another reminder of how the party in the majority (1993, 2001, 2009) almost always oversteps and is quickly reminded of the limits of their mandate. If Trump was smart, they'd let it go instead of appealing, or take everything they've learned the last two weeks and submit a new, more narrowly-defined order. Of course, there's risk there, in terms of losing again (assuming it would be blocked again somewhere along the way)...but at least delaying would give them the opportunity to get a SC decision with Gorsuch on the bench in March/April. Chaffetz town hall

They would just invoke the nuclear option to force Gorsuch through. With two Republican appointees (WA, appellate court 1/3) already blocking Trump, not sure 5-4 can be assumed at all. Maybe 3-6 or 4-5 against Trump?

https://mobile.twitter.com/drewharwell/stat...src=twsrc%5Etfw Even the author of right-wing attack tome "Clinton Cash," who has worked very closely with Bannon in the past, is dubious about the WH promoting Ivanka's line. Who goes first? Conway or Spicer?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 11:37 AM) I think this is very common. Ari Fleischer (Press Sec for GWB) said that they did the same thing at Bush's ranch. They rented some land and set up a base of operations. Between Mar A Lago and Trump Tower, you're talking $3-5 million in yearly rent alone, completely throwing out the DC hotel issues (essentially negotiating rent with himself.) That doesn't even begin to account for additional security costs, to NYC, for example. Bush spent just $1.3 million buying the ranch/land itself in Crawford. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 11:29 AM) Dont worry guys Chaffetz is on the case! He has a 43 point to do list and not one of those points is to look into anything related to Trump. That being said, I hear he will continue to look into Hillary's emails, so Greg should be happy. Greg has been strangely quiet considering Chelsea's recent string of Twitter activity.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 10:44 AM) Except it's not a ban on Muslims. There is no Muslim Ban, just a way to partisan by liberals. How many Muslim-majority countries would have to be on the list to constitute a Muslim ban? 43? Going by the the inverse of the 25% rule we established about Supreme Court nominations (can't nominate in Year 4 of term)....it would be roughly 10-15.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) Didn't Ivanka resign from her company? Why the outrage if she is no longer there? Hmm. The failing Ivanka Trump line is dying a slow death. Sad. She has no one to blame but dear old dad. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-vs-nor...-050216950.html Because she still retains ownership, and therefore benefits from the WH publicity campaign. Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert, said the Nordstrom tweet is problematic because other retailers may think twice now about dropping the Ivanka Trump brand for fear of getting criticized publicly by the president. She said it was especially disturbing that Trump retweeted his message on the official White House account. "The implicit threat was that he will use whatever authority he has to retaliate against Nordstrom, or anyone who crosses his interest," said Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. And the reality is the sales of her products are skyrocketing here in China and many other countries (whereas US sales are flat or declining)...largely because of the increased visibility of her family (including her daughter's ability to speak and sing in Mandarin.)

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/09/news/kelly...rand/index.html Can't imagine how Conway thinks deliberately promoting Ivanka's products is appropriate... Where did the Office of Government Ethics disappear to again? On the plus side, he wants to replace Sean Spicer with Kimberley Guilfoyle, a former lingerie model and Fox host. Wait, what? For 65% of the country, maybe not the best instincts there. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/opinions/whi...rgen/index.html White House terrorism list undermines its own case for travel ban

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 07:16 AM) Gorsuch's PR/Comm guy confirmed it. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/don...rats/index.html As predictable as clockwork... Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie), now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?" Trump tweeted Thursday morning. Pretty bold to also contradict Sasse and Ayotte.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/chr...rnor/index.html Chris Kennedy, son of RFK, to run for governor. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chri...0208-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/joh...emen/index.html Well, we're now to the point where Spicer believes he can demand apologies from any senator from his own party who dares to question the "success" of US military operations. "It's absolutely a success, and I think anyone who would suggest it's not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens," said Spicer, citing intelligence obtained in the operation. Spicer's comments are a shift in his analysis of last month's operation. Last week, he hesitated to call the raid "a success 100% when someone is hurt or killed, and that was the case here." Before Spicer's briefing, McCain criticized the raid, citing the loss of life. "While many of the objectives of the recent raid in Yemen were met, I would not describe any operation that results in the loss of American life as a success," he said in a statement. Asked about McCain's comments at the briefing, Spicer said he had a "message" for anybody who said the mission was not a success, though he did not mention McCain by name. "I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology ... to the life of Chief Owens," Spicer said. https://www.yahoo.com/news/misreading-the-t...-100036877.html Misreading the Trump Mandate I’ve been in this town for 26 years. I have never seen anything like this,” said Eliot Cohen, a senior State Department official under President George W. Bush and a member of his National Security Council. “I genuinely do not think this is a mentally healthy president.” There is the matter of Trump’s briefing materials, for example. The commander in chief doesn’t like to read long memos, a White House aide who asked to remain unnamed told The Huffington Post. So preferably they must be no more than a single page. They must have bullet points but not more than nine per page. Small things can provide him great joy or generate intense irritation. Trump told The New York Times that he’s fascinated with the phone system inside the White House. At the same time, he’s registered a complaint about the hand towels aboard Air Force One, the White House aide said, because they are not soft enough. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-...4b04061313a1fbb

If Manchin hadn't crossed lines, it would have been 51-48. At least Sessions was spared the embarrassment of having to vote for himself or have Pence bail him out. Longest continuous Senate session now since 1960 and counting with Price and Mnuchin through Saturday. Pudzer is really going to get hammered. The whole thing with Warren and McConnell over the King letter has really breathed life back into the resistance. http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1864822...-trump-comments We're now to the point every CEO has to choose sides. The Stephen Curry/Under Armour "misunderstanding" surely won't be the last. Now Trump can go after an MVP for calling him an "ass" instead of an asset. Then the Warriors can refuse to go to the White House, etc.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 05:07 PM) Three times this week Sean Spicer has referenced a terrorist attack in Atlanta by a foreigner. The last terrorist attack in Atlanta was the Olympic bombing, done by a radicalized right wing white man from Florida. What. The. f***. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/spi...trnd/index.html Maybe going back to 1933-1937 isn't such a stretch after all. After Bowling Green, now this? Spicer has to be on his final legs. How could they turn around and commit the same mistake days later...particularly when Atlanta turned out to homegrown terrorism (also blamed foreigners in the beginning)?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/don...elay/index.html Now Trump is giving excuse he argued for one month delay on immigration ban but was overruled (haha) by his own government http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/08/news/compa...anka/index.html Here we go...using official POTUS account to go after Nordstrom about selling Ivanka's fashion/jewelry line.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/gor...eets/index.html Gorsuch says Trump judicial tweets are "demoralizing and disheartening"...hope there's audio/video proof here, or Blumenthal and CNN are going to be blasted.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:17 AM) You do know that the Federal Reserve bank doesn't regulate MBS's right? That falls to the SEC. The only responsibility the Fed would have is as it relates to how an MBS would affect the balance sheet of a member bank, and not for the regulatory worries of the MBS's themselves. Then you have the pseudo-governmental agencies who were buying the damned things without knowing what they were or understanding them in Fannie and Freddie, giving them governmental legitimacy and thus a false price discovery to hold the whole system up for an artificially long time. And without knowing it, you are hitting on my exact point of one agency not knowing or understanding what another agency is doing, even though all of these things are eventually tied together and interwoven throughout our financial system. EDIT, and the answer is very clear, the Fed Bank has zero ability to do anything about anti-trust issues from a legal standpoint. http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-markets/44260382.pdf How are you going to prevent the insurance industry from being involved as well (creating more "too big to fail" scenarios), like AIG? Anyone who watches movies or t.v. shows can understand the conflicts between CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, NSA, Homeland Security, local law enforcement...there's usually less communication and sharing due to everyone protecting their own turf/budgets. So if there's a completely non-partisan way to regulate the financial/monetary system which can be completely depoliticized. I would love to see it. Just not sure it's possible in the current environment. Someone jokingly said that Twitter should have a panel of one Democrat, one Republican and one true independent to vote on whether Trump's tweets should be released in order to prevent a possible nuclear war...but how can that supposed independent not lean one way or the other?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:53 AM) By the way, if there is any sort of precedent for this, any sort of "rule," it's that Presidents appointing someone to the Supreme Court during an election year is fine. One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year How many of those were in year 8? Or happened for example in 1968 after LBJ announced he wasn't running again?

https://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2016/08/26/are...ed-killer-flip/ Looking pretty doubtful the Trump admin even vetted that list of 78 "terrorist" incidents.

The argument was giving a warning would allow a bunch of bad hombres in... Yet they had 7+ days and Miller had already finished the order. Why knowingly endanger the US since they claim there was actionable (yet secret, of course) intelligence? "Take my word on it."