caulfield12

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 07:28 AM) They aren't going to sign anyone because of where they are, not a possible sale. The Marlins might get sold for $1.6 billion and the owe Stanton more money than the Sox will pay almost their entire team the next 3 years. Now Trump will be involved in MLB through his in-laws. More conflicts of interest...or intrusion of politics into sports. The New York Times revealed the potential buyer to be Joshua Kushner, a New York City venture capitalist whose older brother Jared is married to Ivanka Trump. Jared Kushner is senior advisor to President Donald Trump. But the Times reported that neither Jared Kushner nor his father, Charles Kushner, are involved in ongoing talks to buy the team. Instead, Joshua Kushner and Joseph Meyer, his brother-in-law, have been engaged in talks with the Marlins for months about buying the team. Kushner and Meyer have “devised a complicated arrangement that would include bringing in partners later” in order to buy the franchise, according to the Times. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/mlb/miam...l#storylink=cpy

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 07:15 AM) Well kind of. Some of the voters just wanted something different to help them out in some miraculous way like that town in Wisconsin. The base you are referring to think the most incompetent executive branch, maybe in history, is the best ever. Mostly because they've wanted someone in that position who is as racist as they are. Or who are as scared as they are. But they are slowly finding out that their desires financially aren't quite as aligned with the administration as was promised during the campaign. And that part is going to suck for them. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0207-story.html The immigration ban has already cost the airline/travel industry $185 million. The quote from that WI story that really stuck out, "Kramer, who voted twice for Obama, used to watch Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice." ''I said to myself, 'Ugh, I can't stand him.'" When he announced his candidacy, she thought it was a joke. "Then my husband said to me, 'Just think, everything he touches seems to turn to money.'" And she changed her mind. Those rural voters all believe wages can rise 25% for the poor and lower middle class, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid will be protected, health care coverage will remain the same in terms of quality without increasing in price....well, we all know the numbers don't add up to continue expanding the Dept. of Defense/military, construct a border wall and add $1 trillion in infrastructure jobs even through private funding (tolls, bond issues, etc.) Something has to give. It's not going to be the top 1%, that much is clear. What was it, something like 64% of the ObamaCare sign-ups in the final month came from Trump states? They'll find out what life under Price and Ryan is like soon enough.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-immigra...-023405919.html Apparently they're now broadening to traffic misdemeanors, a category excepted by Obama. Around 700-800 arrested in four major cities, including Chicago. My edit: But most of them were on the Obama list already! Wait, I thought Obama was soft on borders and only cared about creating unconstitutional sanctuary cities? https://www.yahoo.com/news/homeland-securit...-185032131.html "At the meeting with law enforcement officials, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore sought help for legal authority to hold criminals in the country illegally after they finish their sentences, giving ICE authorities more time to pick them up at county jails. General Kelly said he didn't know if that was possible but would do so if he could." What?...it would help if he figured out what sanctuary cities were first.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 07:33 PM) Please people, stop thinking Trump's Voters will find something bad about this. This is EXACTLY what they wanted. No, Demanded. For years. This is the dream of the Republican base. The 20-30% of voters in the middle will have to choose a side. Right now, it's probably 25-30% strongly for and 40% strongly against.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 07:03 PM) He's doing a great job of waking up and uniting the opposition. Eventually the bible thumpers will figure out the only thing trump likes about church is that it kept his wife busy while he cheated on her. Once he loses that piece, its trouble. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/us/arizona-g...ests/index.html I can't imagine going through this (mother separated from 2 American-born kids) deportation protest 800,000 times is going to sit well with the Catholic Church. The Pope is much more popular than Trump...and it's going to drive almost every Hispanic-American to the left.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 03:28 PM) Nope. The issue is whether or not the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism in refusing to consider Garland because the nominee was up in an election year. The burden is on you to prove they would have. Biden's speech in 1992 is not anything other than circumstantial evidence that the Dems would have refused to consider a nominee in 1992 because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time. Thus, you haven't met your burden, and the Judge finds in my favor. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/p...servatives.html The Republican Congress floated the idea of a coverage mandate in response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. So by the Brett logic of politics, the Republicans should not be opposed to the mandate in the ACA. Not to mention Romney's Massachusetts health care plan was far to the left of Obama's. Darned socialist...errrrr, capitalist!

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 04:11 PM) Ruh roh https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/10/politics...date/index.html He plays golf with Abe at Mar-A-Lago (act now, you too can play the same course as the president, before membership fees triple rather than just double!) and everything's fixed? Japan is paying more for its defense, and not trying to get US troops removed from their base in Okinawa? Otani's posting fee is taken care of as well? http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/dev...hool/index.html Protests block DeVos in Washington "I respect peaceful protest, and I will not be deterred in executing the vital mission of the Department of Education," the statement said. "No school door in America will be blocked from those seeking to help our nation's school children." Add punchline comparing her efforts to school integration in AR, MS and AL in 1950's and 60's.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) Candidate Trump called for a total ban of Muslims. Couldn't live up to his promise because the damn liberal judicial system knows how to read the Constitution. DeVos will take care of that with the next generation. Healthcare is fixed? Health savings accounts and block grants until the money runs out...we'll all have access in the same way we all have access to the local Lambourghini/Ferrari/Maserati dealership. References to ACA and ObamaCare totally wiped from all WH/government websites. That will surely help.

Reagan/Ford, Carter/Kennedy and then Eugene McCarthy/LBJ (RFK jumped in later) in 1968 Sen. Claude Pepper tried to lead Dump Truman in 1948

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) McMullin will be back Cruz Kasich Rubio A general like Mattis, Kelly, McChrystal or Petraeus

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/dona...esidency-234879 Trump vexed by challenges, scale of government...

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