Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Trump is going to get trolled.
Trump is going to get trolled.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in office
- Thread starter smartguy
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
History of the Federal Judiciary
The judicial branch is deliberately removed, to a degree, from the normal political process. This is part of how the checks and balances are set up. They review legislature, and are a mechanism to help protect political minorities.
As anyone with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence should know: It is fairly common for cases to be overturned as they move up the ladder. If that was a justification to impeach a judge, the entire federal judiciary would be wiped out on an annual basis. In addition, as you should have known if you took 90 seconds to look into it, the judge will be tried by the US Senate -- which can barely get its act together enough to appoint federal judges, let alone throw out half of them on an annual basis.
In short: The idea that a number of federal judges will be impeached (and, presumably, removed) because they ruled against Trump's travel ban, or do not fit his ideological preferences, is beyond laughable -- and shows that your claims to any sort of knowledge of political science in history is not worth the electrons that are changing the pixels on my screen.
A student of politics and history might have heard of "anticipatory balancing," which is that voters generally dislike the idea of one party having too much power -- e.g. Presidency and a majority in Congress. Even if you haven't heard the term, you should know that for many years now, the party of the President routinely loses seats in mid-term elections. If anything, the historical trend suggests that Democrats will pick up some seats, in spite of Republican success on local and state levels, along with gerrymandering districts.
[continued]
I did. For the entire history of the United States, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only 8 were removed. None of them were removed for having rulings overturned, or for ideological reasons.
History of the Federal Judiciary
Of course. It's a decision to review whether the justice is still fit for office, or should be removed. For federal judges, the trial takes place in the US Senate.
Of course. Federal judges are appointed for life, so we need a process to remove them if they engage in criminal activity, or are otherwise unfit for office, and refuse to resign.
A rule? No. What there is is a basic understanding of both the norms of the federal judiciary, as well as a healthy dose of common sense.
The judicial branch is deliberately removed, to a degree, from the normal political process. This is part of how the checks and balances are set up. They review legislature, and are a mechanism to help protect political minorities.
As anyone with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence should know: It is fairly common for cases to be overturned as they move up the ladder. If that was a justification to impeach a judge, the entire federal judiciary would be wiped out on an annual basis. In addition, as you should have known if you took 90 seconds to look into it, the judge will be tried by the US Senate -- which can barely get its act together enough to appoint federal judges, let alone throw out half of them on an annual basis.
In short: The idea that a number of federal judges will be impeached (and, presumably, removed) because they ruled against Trump's travel ban, or do not fit his ideological preferences, is beyond laughable -- and shows that your claims to any sort of knowledge of political science in history is not worth the electrons that are changing the pixels on my screen.
Let me be more specific. Numerous administrations, and media commentators, become breathless in predictions of future victories after a Presidential election. Karl Rove infamously proclaimed he was building a "100 year majority" in 2001; Tom DeLay upgraded that to a "permanent majority" in 2004. Then, in 2008, Republicans got destroyed in the federal elections.
A student of politics and history might have heard of "anticipatory balancing," which is that voters generally dislike the idea of one party having too much power -- e.g. Presidency and a majority in Congress. Even if you haven't heard the term, you should know that for many years now, the party of the President routinely loses seats in mid-term elections. If anything, the historical trend suggests that Democrats will pick up some seats, in spite of Republican success on local and state levels, along with gerrymandering districts.
[continued]
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
• Lied about inauguration crowd sizes
• Lied about using mats on the Great Lawn "for the first time" (they've been used since 2013)
• Lied about the global audience for the inauguration
• Lied about unemployment numbers ("they were phony in the past, but they're real now" -- despite no change whatsoever in methodology, and basically being the same as 2/2016 numbers)
• Lied about GHCQ running surveillance on Trump Tower
• Flynn. KC said Flynn had Trump's "full confidence." Shortly thereafter, Flynn "resigned." Spicer says he was fired, because he had lost Trump's trust. A few days later, Trump describes Flynn as a "wonderful man" and blames his firing on the media.
• Spicer also claims Flynn didn't violate any laws. Flynn almost certainly violated the Logan Act, which is why he lied about the conversation to Pence. Hmmmm.
• According to Spicer, Sessions telling Congress point blank "I didn't talk to any Russians" when he had in fact talked to the Russian Ambassador in his office is an example of being "100% straight".
• The first travel ban was done with "precision" and a "flawless manner"
• In today's news: There is no "Plan B" if the AHCA passes, even though Trump has discussed his "plan b," which is to let the ACA continue and collapse on its own
• Lied about intention to "never lie"
If I had to catalogue all his lies, I'd be here all day. That's why we rely on journalists to do it for us.
Failures include: 4 casinos, which failed because he over-leveraged them, despite warnings. He also lied to regulators about the amount of borrowing, and asked Daddy to bail him out by purchasing $3.3 million in chips that were never used (ruled an illegal loan).
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html
Other failures:
Trump Steaks
Trump University
Trump Airlines
Trump Vodka
GoTrump.com (travel website)
Trump Mortgage (launched 2006 -- yeah that's business acumen for you)
Trump Magazine
Trump: The Game
Trump Ice (bottled water)
New Jersey Generals (USFL team)
Tour de Trump (bicycle race)
Trump Network
Trumped! (talk radio)
Trump New Media (1998 website)
NYT also put together a list of his ventures from 2000 to 2012. 40% were outright failures; 25% had serious issues; 34% were successes. The successes included The Apprentice and Miss Universe; many of the enterprises were mere branding deals.
From what I hear, he builds a mean golf course; Ferry Point is reportedly doing well.. Other courses... not so much.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf-course-resort-losses
Apparently, much of his net worth is highly concentrated into a relatively small part of Manhattan; so when the value of that area drops (as it did this year), so does Trump's net worth (resulting in him falling to #544 on the Forbes list this year). And even by the standards of that game, he's small fry. Related, Extell, Chetrit, HFZ, Macklowe, JDS, Elad etc all have substantially larger real estate holdings in NYC than Trump.
So yes, given that he started with huge advantages, he does not strike me as a particularly talented business man. His strength is in pushing his brand. Oh, and designing golf courses.
A small sample
• Lied about inauguration crowd sizes
• Lied about using mats on the Great Lawn "for the first time" (they've been used since 2013)
• Lied about the global audience for the inauguration
• Lied about unemployment numbers ("they were phony in the past, but they're real now" -- despite no change whatsoever in methodology, and basically being the same as 2/2016 numbers)
• Lied about GHCQ running surveillance on Trump Tower
• Flynn. KC said Flynn had Trump's "full confidence." Shortly thereafter, Flynn "resigned." Spicer says he was fired, because he had lost Trump's trust. A few days later, Trump describes Flynn as a "wonderful man" and blames his firing on the media.
• Spicer also claims Flynn didn't violate any laws. Flynn almost certainly violated the Logan Act, which is why he lied about the conversation to Pence. Hmmmm.
• According to Spicer, Sessions telling Congress point blank "I didn't talk to any Russians" when he had in fact talked to the Russian Ambassador in his office is an example of being "100% straight".
• The first travel ban was done with "precision" and a "flawless manner"
• In today's news: There is no "Plan B" if the AHCA passes, even though Trump has discussed his "plan b," which is to let the ACA continue and collapse on its own
• Lied about intention to "never lie"
If I had to catalogue all his lies, I'd be here all day. That's why we rely on journalists to do it for us.
lol
Failures include: 4 casinos, which failed because he over-leveraged them, despite warnings. He also lied to regulators about the amount of borrowing, and asked Daddy to bail him out by purchasing $3.3 million in chips that were never used (ruled an illegal loan).
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html
Other failures:
Trump Steaks
Trump University
Trump Airlines
Trump Vodka
GoTrump.com (travel website)
Trump Mortgage (launched 2006 -- yeah that's business acumen for you)
Trump Magazine
Trump: The Game
Trump Ice (bottled water)
New Jersey Generals (USFL team)
Tour de Trump (bicycle race)
Trump Network
Trumped! (talk radio)
Trump New Media (1998 website)
NYT also put together a list of his ventures from 2000 to 2012. 40% were outright failures; 25% had serious issues; 34% were successes. The successes included The Apprentice and Miss Universe; many of the enterprises were mere branding deals.
From what I hear, he builds a mean golf course; Ferry Point is reportedly doing well.. Other courses... not so much.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf-course-resort-losses
Apparently, much of his net worth is highly concentrated into a relatively small part of Manhattan; so when the value of that area drops (as it did this year), so does Trump's net worth (resulting in him falling to #544 on the Forbes list this year). And even by the standards of that game, he's small fry. Related, Extell, Chetrit, HFZ, Macklowe, JDS, Elad etc all have substantially larger real estate holdings in NYC than Trump.
So yes, given that he started with huge advantages, he does not strike me as a particularly talented business man. His strength is in pushing his brand. Oh, and designing golf courses.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2017
- Messages
- 4,592
- Reaction score
- 2,283
- Location
- South Western Mississippi
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
You cannot smack the Trumpeters in the face with that much reality. They are simply not emotionally equipped to handle it.
You cannot smack the Trumpeters in the face with that much reality. They are simply not emotionally equipped to handle it.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Your true problem seem to lay in comprehension, analysis, then the fantasy you weave around your posts that lead you in such wrong directions. You see, the next couple of questions were rhetorical leading you up to, hopefully, your understanding that impeachment is there... and for good reason. A judge that makes up his own rules based on his opposing ideology in conflict, not in compliance, with the Federal law, not on the Constitution nor on the statutes carved out by our National Legislature, should immediately be charged with this conscious breach and possibly tossed... impeachment is the method to start that ball rolling.
While you are pretty even handed on your description, there is no call to remove these judges based solely on a wrong decision. As you aptly put it, "As anyone with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence should know:" that judges are given the fiduciary duty to be judges based on their ruling on the law. If you have rogue judges show that they are not following the law, they are making it up, ruling as fits their ideology as they go along... well, they can and should be impeached.
Impeachment, btw, does not require criminal conduct...its been done for questionable conduct. Not using the law, but one's own ideological beliefs, to make a judicial determination is quite questionable enough.
What is truly questionable is your ability to read and comprehend what is written by those other than yourself [ and I can only assume you can with the latter, tho this is not proven].
And it should take about twenty seconds or less to read my post and, if one has sufficient reading and processing capacity, discern nowhere in my post did I mentioned, allude to or hint at the Senate throwing out half the Federal judges. Matter of fact, I mentioned only impeachment, which requires a simple majority vote in the House. Easily accomplished.
The Ronald Reagan quote immediately comes to mind when you folks create straw men like this —''It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.''
The fact of the matter is you keep, as with your last paragraphs, creating straw men. I specifically told you I had not gone ANYWHERE NEAR what you are trying to, for who knows what reason, make an argument against something I never said, alluded to, head faked towards, represented was the case... do you get it yet?
Nice, you looked something up and so, maybe, got it correct. The parts without your own input.
Your true problem seem to lay in comprehension, analysis, then the fantasy you weave around your posts that lead you in such wrong directions. You see, the next couple of questions were rhetorical leading you up to, hopefully, your understanding that impeachment is there... and for good reason. A judge that makes up his own rules based on his opposing ideology in conflict, not in compliance, with the Federal law, not on the Constitution nor on the statutes carved out by our National Legislature, should immediately be charged with this conscious breach and possibly tossed... impeachment is the method to start that ball rolling.
While you are pretty even handed on your description, there is no call to remove these judges based solely on a wrong decision. As you aptly put it, "As anyone with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence should know:" that judges are given the fiduciary duty to be judges based on their ruling on the law. If you have rogue judges show that they are not following the law, they are making it up, ruling as fits their ideology as they go along... well, they can and should be impeached.
Impeachment, btw, does not require criminal conduct...its been done for questionable conduct. Not using the law, but one's own ideological beliefs, to make a judicial determination is quite questionable enough.
What is truly questionable is your ability to read and comprehend what is written by those other than yourself [ and I can only assume you can with the latter, tho this is not proven].
And it should take about twenty seconds or less to read my post and, if one has sufficient reading and processing capacity, discern nowhere in my post did I mentioned, allude to or hint at the Senate throwing out half the Federal judges. Matter of fact, I mentioned only impeachment, which requires a simple majority vote in the House. Easily accomplished.
The Ronald Reagan quote immediately comes to mind when you folks create straw men like this —''It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.''
The fact of the matter is you keep, as with your last paragraphs, creating straw men. I specifically told you I had not gone ANYWHERE NEAR what you are trying to, for who knows what reason, make an argument against something I never said, alluded to, head faked towards, represented was the case... do you get it yet?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
By the way, this is as the president himself pointed out, section 212 (f) of the Immigration/Nationality Act, 1952.
It reads as follows:
"Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
What do you, and more importantly what do these supposed knowledgeable Federal Judges, not get about exactly what the powers of the president are in this regard?
Oh yeah, they are Democrat Federal Judges, my bad. Impeach 'em.
And so to help you have a better understanding and not leave you to your own, faulty, devices, here is the applicable statute giving the President the power to do what he did:
By the way, this is as the president himself pointed out, section 212 (f) of the Immigration/Nationality Act, 1952.
It reads as follows:
"Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
What do you, and more importantly what do these supposed knowledgeable Federal Judges, not get about exactly what the powers of the president are in this regard?
Oh yeah, they are Democrat Federal Judges, my bad. Impeach 'em.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Have a go at my answers yourself, chum... I mean, if you feel confident and can manage to break away a few days from hysterically calling for Trump blood.
Ha ha ha, yeah right.
Have a go at my answers yourself, chum... I mean, if you feel confident and can manage to break away a few days from hysterically calling for Trump blood.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Why not list all the successes individually as well? What amount of money did he start with...how much does he have now?
Your assessments are of truly little value and mostly assertion of liberal opinion and not fact... so your opinions are just that, faulty opinions
Why not list all the successes individually as well? What amount of money did he start with...how much does he have now?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Or, you've been schooled, and don't want to admit it. A normal human impulse, of course. Yet again:
• There have only been 15 impeachments in the entire history of the US
• Only 8 resulted in removal
• None were for ideological differences, let alone rulings getting overturned
• It is downright routine for rulings to be overturned
• Impeachment of a federal judge would be a very serious process, and the trial is in the US Senate
• Bonus new point! Accusations of "judicial activism" are routine, and never result in impeachment
Meanwhile, there is no indication of numerous judges across the US "making up laws." In fact, they are applying existing laws, within the confines of the Constiution, when making their rulings.
Of course, reviewing the validity of those rulings is far beyond the scope of this thread. I suggest you pick up on one of the dozens of other threads on that topic.
Seriously, I give you a one-page link, and you don't bother to read it? Impressive
Multiple federal courts have put the kibosh on Trump's travel ban -- and large swaths of the judiciary support their views. Are you suggesting that we should impeach those judges, and not proceed with removal proceedings? And do so on an ideological basis? That is just too funny.
You claimed that Republicans were likely to pick up seats in the next election. I pointed out that historically, the opposite happens -- the party that holds the Presidency traditionally loses seats in the midterm. I know there are a lot of words, but please try to pay attention.
lol
Or, you've been schooled, and don't want to admit it. A normal human impulse, of course. Yet again:
• There have only been 15 impeachments in the entire history of the US
• Only 8 resulted in removal
• None were for ideological differences, let alone rulings getting overturned
• It is downright routine for rulings to be overturned
• Impeachment of a federal judge would be a very serious process, and the trial is in the US Senate
• Bonus new point! Accusations of "judicial activism" are routine, and never result in impeachment
Meanwhile, there is no indication of numerous judges across the US "making up laws." In fact, they are applying existing laws, within the confines of the Constiution, when making their rulings.
Of course, reviewing the validity of those rulings is far beyond the scope of this thread. I suggest you pick up on one of the dozens of other threads on that topic.
BZZT wrong, check the list. There are no examples of anyone getting impeached on ideological basis. It's because they were drunk on the bench, or abused contempt powers, or rebelling against the government in the Civil War, or favoritism, or tax evasion, or perjury...
Seriously, I give you a one-page link, and you don't bother to read it? Impressive
LOL
Multiple federal courts have put the kibosh on Trump's travel ban -- and large swaths of the judiciary support their views. Are you suggesting that we should impeach those judges, and not proceed with removal proceedings? And do so on an ideological basis? That is just too funny.
Responding to your points is creating straw men? lol
You claimed that Republicans were likely to pick up seats in the next election. I pointed out that historically, the opposite happens -- the party that holds the Presidency traditionally loses seats in the midterm. I know there are a lot of words, but please try to pay attention.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Sorry dude, but your argument amounts to "n'uh-uh!" and "stupid liburls!" You can't even accept basic facts like Spicer lying about crowd sizes, Flynn violating the Logan Act, the utter disaster and disarray of the first travel ban...
You're just not making any arguments anymore. There's nothing to respond to. Sad!
:mrgreen:
lol
Sorry dude, but your argument amounts to "n'uh-uh!" and "stupid liburls!" You can't even accept basic facts like Spicer lying about crowd sizes, Flynn violating the Logan Act, the utter disaster and disarray of the first travel ban...
You're just not making any arguments anymore. There's nothing to respond to. Sad!
Do your own research.
:mrgreen:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Being one of the few on the left that actually does something... hardly gives one the mantle of "teacher". So you provided a fact or two, congratulations...this should be common, the norm. Yano?
Why repeat your last post, need a pat on the back, want me to pet you on the head?.
Speaking of getting schooled, I gave you the law:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Show me how the judges used the law to make their decisions.
You can't, they didn't. They are in direct contradiction of the law and should be summarily impeached. In the absence of that, since one branch without that power is making up the law instead of applying it, you would rather the president, a la Andrew Jackson in the Cherokee Indian court decision when he stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”, just start ignoring court decisions? There are three co-equal branches and the president and the legislature made and are following the law... So, either impeachment for flagrant flouting of the law or the executive branch should just ignore, refuse to adhere to court decisions. I know which way is better for the nation. The former is the proper way to run an orderly and organized system when you have law breaking judges.
However many times impeachment been utilized in the past is simply irrelevant. Judicious, pun intended, removal of judges illegally blocking, attempting to prevent a sitting president performing one of his chief duties to the nation, protection of its citizens, is what should occur.
Ha ha ha ha ha. WWWWrong. Trying to yank our chains? The law is the law. Impeachment relies not solely upon limitations of impeachments in the past. Funny... in a ludicrous sense.
Read your one page list alright... along with your poor assumptions on impeachment based on that one page. Bwwhahahaha
RE: question on "large swaths of judiciary support" for judges flouting laws they should be upholding... that be the case, a few impeachments would probably be sufficient medicine to cure such judicatory malfeasance.
Don't know "straw man", eh? Look it up. And that last paragraph is a flat out lie. Specifically asserted that we, GOP, would probably be winners this next midterm, that it was unusual, but would likely happen. Then you went on to outer space, creative fiction blather ranting about such things as "permanent majority, "100 year majority"...none of which came from my keyboard.
When you look up straw man, try to piece it together. There are long term political realignments... maybe look that up as well.
Being one of the few on the left that actually does something... hardly gives one the mantle of "teacher". So you provided a fact or two, congratulations...this should be common, the norm. Yano?
Why repeat your last post, need a pat on the back, want me to pet you on the head?.
Speaking of getting schooled, I gave you the law:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Show me how the judges used the law to make their decisions.
You can't, they didn't. They are in direct contradiction of the law and should be summarily impeached. In the absence of that, since one branch without that power is making up the law instead of applying it, you would rather the president, a la Andrew Jackson in the Cherokee Indian court decision when he stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”, just start ignoring court decisions? There are three co-equal branches and the president and the legislature made and are following the law... So, either impeachment for flagrant flouting of the law or the executive branch should just ignore, refuse to adhere to court decisions. I know which way is better for the nation. The former is the proper way to run an orderly and organized system when you have law breaking judges.
However many times impeachment been utilized in the past is simply irrelevant. Judicious, pun intended, removal of judges illegally blocking, attempting to prevent a sitting president performing one of his chief duties to the nation, protection of its citizens, is what should occur.
Ha ha ha ha ha. WWWWrong. Trying to yank our chains? The law is the law. Impeachment relies not solely upon limitations of impeachments in the past. Funny... in a ludicrous sense.
Read your one page list alright... along with your poor assumptions on impeachment based on that one page. Bwwhahahaha
RE: question on "large swaths of judiciary support" for judges flouting laws they should be upholding... that be the case, a few impeachments would probably be sufficient medicine to cure such judicatory malfeasance.
Don't know "straw man", eh? Look it up. And that last paragraph is a flat out lie. Specifically asserted that we, GOP, would probably be winners this next midterm, that it was unusual, but would likely happen. Then you went on to outer space, creative fiction blather ranting about such things as "permanent majority, "100 year majority"...none of which came from my keyboard.
When you look up straw man, try to piece it together. There are long term political realignments... maybe look that up as well.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2017
- Messages
- 8,139
- Reaction score
- 2,678
- Location
- Nassau County, Long Island
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Trump’s approval rating sucks — according to polls.
These are the same polls that said Hillary Clinton would be in the White House right now. Not only that, but they said Clinton would easily win the presidency.
Even if the polls were now showing Trump’s popularity booming, I’d say the same thing: To hell with the polls.
Pollsters must love these between-election polls because they can report anything and not be proved wrong.
It’s when there is an election coming up that they really stick their necks out.
The media, of course, are complicit in the pollsters’ scam. Without the press, the polls would go unnoticed.
So whether Trump’s approval rating is 39 percent or 93 percent, take the numbers with a pillar of salt.
Trump’s approval rating sucks — according to polls.
These are the same polls that said Hillary Clinton would be in the White House right now. Not only that, but they said Clinton would easily win the presidency.
Even if the polls were now showing Trump’s popularity booming, I’d say the same thing: To hell with the polls.
Pollsters must love these between-election polls because they can report anything and not be proved wrong.
It’s when there is an election coming up that they really stick their necks out.
The media, of course, are complicit in the pollsters’ scam. Without the press, the polls would go unnoticed.
So whether Trump’s approval rating is 39 percent or 93 percent, take the numbers with a pillar of salt.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Wow, that is all you "distilled" is a cartoon version of a caricature? :roll:
You are entertaining... in a throw up a wall of words that mean nothing kind of way.
Gonna have to go back to the drawing board dude, those caricatures need to fill out a bit... tossing a line like that in there is nearing concession. As to Spicer, why not give me the verified crowd numbers, with supporting and valid sources? Why, cause you can't. So, in each instance you make **** up and then when you cannot prove it, you use a disingenuous argument or that throw away line like "n'uh-uh!" and "stupid liburls!" as if that is debate... or you just leave it out of your post like it never happened.
Pretty good for a lefty. Keep it up, there is always JV...and next year.
eace:2wave::lamo
Wow, that is all you "distilled" is a cartoon version of a caricature? :roll:
You are entertaining... in a throw up a wall of words that mean nothing kind of way.
Gonna have to go back to the drawing board dude, those caricatures need to fill out a bit... tossing a line like that in there is nearing concession. As to Spicer, why not give me the verified crowd numbers, with supporting and valid sources? Why, cause you can't. So, in each instance you make **** up and then when you cannot prove it, you use a disingenuous argument or that throw away line like "n'uh-uh!" and "stupid liburls!" as if that is debate... or you just leave it out of your post like it never happened.
Pretty good for a lefty. Keep it up, there is always JV...and next year.
eace:2wave::lamo
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
You showed no sign that when this discussion started, impeachment is extremely rare -- and for good reason. You don't understand the norms of the federal judiciary. You don't understand the risks of violating those norms. You don't recognize that federal judges are not removed for ideological reasons. You don't recognize that your own interpretation of the law is highly ideological. You seem to think that using a larger font size substitutes for argument. And as your arguments collapse, you resort to ad hominem attacks, and fail to construct actual arguments.
As a result, most of your post can be safely ignored.
• It's obviously a form of religious discrimination -- as attested to by Trump himself, declaring a ban on all Muslims entering the United States during the campaign; and by administration officials saying that the 2nd ban had the same policy effects as the first.
And yes, the law bars discrimination on the basis of religion, as does the Constitution.
• Yes, it is also valid to consider the intent of laws, rather than their surface features. E.g. Jim Crow laws did not specifically state "we're blocking black people from voting," yet their discriminatory intent was obvious. ("Courts may not turn a blind eye to the context in which a policy arose.")
• The administration utterly failed to demonstrate that there was any urgency to the law. This initial claim was pretty much wiped out in the 1st order by the utter failure of the administration to provide any evidence of the urgency (what a surprise), including a total lack of attacks perpetrated by immigrants from the nations on the restricted list. The 2nd order also suffers not only from the delay in issuing it, and the lack of attacks during the stay, but also by the delay in writing the second order and delay included in the second order.
• States alleged that the harm done by the ban is greater than the benefits. This should not be too surprising, since the administration provided no evidence of benefits, and the harms were stunningly obvious.
• The 2nd ban does resolve some issues, specifically the earlier attempts to bar legal permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders from entry. It attempts to resolve some of the issues with religious discrimination, but this was (again) sabotaged by the Administration's own statements.
Oh, and fun fact! The legal reasoning behind granting the states standing is the same as was invoked to block Obama's executive order to delay deportations for many unauthorized immigrants.
Contrary to your highly selective (and laughably font-sized) quote, the President has a great deal of latitude -- but does not have unlimited control over visas and immigration policy.
While you may not agree with the decision of the numerous courts, it is sheer or willful ignorance to proclaim that they are ignoring the law, or making up laws, or legislating from the bench, etc etc.
More importantly, there is no grounds for impeachment in those rulings. This should be immediately apparent to anyone with even a cursory understanding of jurisprudence, and the history of America.
Because you failed to recognize and engage the topic we were discussing. And you've done so again.
You showed no sign that when this discussion started, impeachment is extremely rare -- and for good reason. You don't understand the norms of the federal judiciary. You don't understand the risks of violating those norms. You don't recognize that federal judges are not removed for ideological reasons. You don't recognize that your own interpretation of the law is highly ideological. You seem to think that using a larger font size substitutes for argument. And as your arguments collapse, you resort to ad hominem attacks, and fail to construct actual arguments.
As a result, most of your post can be safely ignored.
You asked for it
• It's obviously a form of religious discrimination -- as attested to by Trump himself, declaring a ban on all Muslims entering the United States during the campaign; and by administration officials saying that the 2nd ban had the same policy effects as the first.
And yes, the law bars discrimination on the basis of religion, as does the Constitution.
• Yes, it is also valid to consider the intent of laws, rather than their surface features. E.g. Jim Crow laws did not specifically state "we're blocking black people from voting," yet their discriminatory intent was obvious. ("Courts may not turn a blind eye to the context in which a policy arose.")
• The administration utterly failed to demonstrate that there was any urgency to the law. This initial claim was pretty much wiped out in the 1st order by the utter failure of the administration to provide any evidence of the urgency (what a surprise), including a total lack of attacks perpetrated by immigrants from the nations on the restricted list. The 2nd order also suffers not only from the delay in issuing it, and the lack of attacks during the stay, but also by the delay in writing the second order and delay included in the second order.
• States alleged that the harm done by the ban is greater than the benefits. This should not be too surprising, since the administration provided no evidence of benefits, and the harms were stunningly obvious.
• The 2nd ban does resolve some issues, specifically the earlier attempts to bar legal permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders from entry. It attempts to resolve some of the issues with religious discrimination, but this was (again) sabotaged by the Administration's own statements.
Oh, and fun fact! The legal reasoning behind granting the states standing is the same as was invoked to block Obama's executive order to delay deportations for many unauthorized immigrants.
Contrary to your highly selective (and laughably font-sized) quote, the President has a great deal of latitude -- but does not have unlimited control over visas and immigration policy.
While you may not agree with the decision of the numerous courts, it is sheer or willful ignorance to proclaim that they are ignoring the law, or making up laws, or legislating from the bench, etc etc.
More importantly, there is no grounds for impeachment in those rulings. This should be immediately apparent to anyone with even a cursory understanding of jurisprudence, and the history of America.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Seriously, you throw up, apt description, a lotta stuff that, on the surface, sounds kinda, good. All warm, fuzzy like, particularly the fuzzy part, not really under-girded by...well much of anything. I acknowledged impeachment has been rare... that being irrelevant as to countering judges going beyond their true purview, outside their own jurisdiction, not applying the law based solely on their own ideology. You see, we elect a president as a national leader to do the very things necessary to protect us on a national level.
Simply put, Judges don't have sufficient understanding of the threats to make such decisions.
Add that is not how the law is, or should be, be practiced. It only expresses how the current system, is broken, puts Americans in peril.
Sorry pal, our constitution is not a world constitution, its framework is for governing the United States, territories and jurisdictions. It is meant for OUR citizens, not everybody in the world. Nor relatives of those living in the US currently.
Too funny...
Glad you brought it up, but its obvious you like to ignore that which you're unable to answer....understood your reluctance to engage on points. Your posts are riddled with such holes you cannot/do not answer.
Know which countries are included in the ban and where that list came from? What's the function of that list? Was it legal to form the list or is it unlawfully discriminatory? Shouldn't judges strike it down? If so, why did that not occur under the last administration?
Excepting the travel ban is not “obviously” discriminatory, it bans all people, religious or not, allows Muslims from other countries, so not an exclusive Muslim ban. Reminder, the first travel ban was constitutional, just as the second, both completely valid under section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Where exactly in our Constitution is a requirement to look at intent? Clue: It doesn't. That is a modern warm fuzzy construct that, at their whim, liberals embrace or abandon. Example, original intent of the 14th amendment nowhere near covers what it is used for today.
Where is there a precondition in the I and N Act that requires the inclusion of urgency?
Again, actual text of the law:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of*any aliens*or of*any class of aliens*into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
“Whenever”... do I have to define that for you? Nowhere is it stated in the act that there needs to have been attacks.
Delays affect the validity of the law? Bull****
Lol,
Seriously, you throw up, apt description, a lotta stuff that, on the surface, sounds kinda, good. All warm, fuzzy like, particularly the fuzzy part, not really under-girded by...well much of anything. I acknowledged impeachment has been rare... that being irrelevant as to countering judges going beyond their true purview, outside their own jurisdiction, not applying the law based solely on their own ideology. You see, we elect a president as a national leader to do the very things necessary to protect us on a national level.
Simply put, Judges don't have sufficient understanding of the threats to make such decisions.
Add that is not how the law is, or should be, be practiced. It only expresses how the current system, is broken, puts Americans in peril.
Sorry pal, our constitution is not a world constitution, its framework is for governing the United States, territories and jurisdictions. It is meant for OUR citizens, not everybody in the world. Nor relatives of those living in the US currently.
Too funny...
Glad you brought it up, but its obvious you like to ignore that which you're unable to answer....understood your reluctance to engage on points. Your posts are riddled with such holes you cannot/do not answer.
Know which countries are included in the ban and where that list came from? What's the function of that list? Was it legal to form the list or is it unlawfully discriminatory? Shouldn't judges strike it down? If so, why did that not occur under the last administration?
Excepting the travel ban is not “obviously” discriminatory, it bans all people, religious or not, allows Muslims from other countries, so not an exclusive Muslim ban. Reminder, the first travel ban was constitutional, just as the second, both completely valid under section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Where exactly in our Constitution is a requirement to look at intent? Clue: It doesn't. That is a modern warm fuzzy construct that, at their whim, liberals embrace or abandon. Example, original intent of the 14th amendment nowhere near covers what it is used for today.
Where is there a precondition in the I and N Act that requires the inclusion of urgency?
Again, actual text of the law:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of*any aliens*or of*any class of aliens*into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
“Whenever”... do I have to define that for you? Nowhere is it stated in the act that there needs to have been attacks.
Delays affect the validity of the law? Bull****
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
States rights/laws, when in conflict with the federal, are subservient. Cannot override national security for alleged monetary nor emotional “harms”.
See supremacy clause.
Does not matter if the second ban overcame “issues” in the first, the first was perfectly legal...
Your fun fact does not make it anymore wrong by the courts to block bans under the bomb than it does now.
I personally get a kick out of your lols, usually a signal that you are about to state something incorrect. Matter of fact, you could be using lol almost continually. Now, back to the law... how was the quote of 212 (f) highly selective? When it comes to national security and 212, yes, the president does have the express power given him by Congress by the act. Since it isn't unconstitutional, he is supreme on the matter. Enforcement/execution of this law is to safeguard our national security and protect citizens. If Congress wants to change the law, they certainly can... but as it stands now, he does have this power.
If the courts want to move to strike down the 1952 law giving him this power, they should try. So your last statements are totally without basis in any reliable fact, just the warm fuzzy logic that you brought with you.
To make the last statement indicates you do not have that even cursory understanding of the fundamentals of the three branches of power and how they work in conjunction. Its not an imperial court of law, its a constitutional court. That the courts have hoisted themselves to this position is true, but this is exactly why we need a reset... and we might as well start here, might as well start now.
As indicated previously, whereupon you went off the proverbial deep end, I think, and certainly hope for the security of the nation, that the GOP will retain House and Senate at midterm and, cross our fingers, achieve a super majority in the Senate so we might impeach and send a message to these rogue judges... and perhaps rearrange the court system as Congress has the power to do.
Our true necessity as a nation is to get back on an even and steady keel. You lefties had your eight years, you've done your damage, Now time to fit the puzzle parts in their right places again. With any luck RBG steps down, no way she;s gonna make it another 8. Trump can appoint another conservative judge securing a reliable majority; then normalization returns to the republic again... a necessity in a highly volatile world where strength against growing predator might in the hands of radicals and extreme leftism can credibly be addressed.
Would never happen under a lefty...clearly proven by a very limp-wristed o bomb this last 8.
States rights/laws, when in conflict with the federal, are subservient. Cannot override national security for alleged monetary nor emotional “harms”.
See supremacy clause.
Does not matter if the second ban overcame “issues” in the first, the first was perfectly legal...
Your fun fact does not make it anymore wrong by the courts to block bans under the bomb than it does now.
I personally get a kick out of your lols, usually a signal that you are about to state something incorrect. Matter of fact, you could be using lol almost continually. Now, back to the law... how was the quote of 212 (f) highly selective? When it comes to national security and 212, yes, the president does have the express power given him by Congress by the act. Since it isn't unconstitutional, he is supreme on the matter. Enforcement/execution of this law is to safeguard our national security and protect citizens. If Congress wants to change the law, they certainly can... but as it stands now, he does have this power.
If the courts want to move to strike down the 1952 law giving him this power, they should try. So your last statements are totally without basis in any reliable fact, just the warm fuzzy logic that you brought with you.
To make the last statement indicates you do not have that even cursory understanding of the fundamentals of the three branches of power and how they work in conjunction. Its not an imperial court of law, its a constitutional court. That the courts have hoisted themselves to this position is true, but this is exactly why we need a reset... and we might as well start here, might as well start now.
As indicated previously, whereupon you went off the proverbial deep end, I think, and certainly hope for the security of the nation, that the GOP will retain House and Senate at midterm and, cross our fingers, achieve a super majority in the Senate so we might impeach and send a message to these rogue judges... and perhaps rearrange the court system as Congress has the power to do.
Our true necessity as a nation is to get back on an even and steady keel. You lefties had your eight years, you've done your damage, Now time to fit the puzzle parts in their right places again. With any luck RBG steps down, no way she;s gonna make it another 8. Trump can appoint another conservative judge securing a reliable majority; then normalization returns to the republic again... a necessity in a highly volatile world where strength against growing predator might in the hands of radicals and extreme leftism can credibly be addressed.
Would never happen under a lefty...clearly proven by a very limp-wristed o bomb this last 8.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
I also made it clear that the judges were in fact applying the law. You personally may not like what they've done, and it is entirely plausible the SCOTUS will disagree with their assessment. However, it is very clear they were not making up the law on the spot, or inventing new federally protected rights, or doing anything that merits impeachment.
And I concur that the President has a great deal of latitude to protect the US. That does not mean the President has unlimited powers to do whatever he wants on that basis.
It's the job of the administration, in its briefs, to convince the court that there is an imminent threat that justifies such emergency conditions. Since there were no terrorists coming from those nations, right off the bat that's a hard sell.
I answer as much as I can, given the character limits. I'm already letting you drag me into issues completely unrelated to the OP as it is.
2) The Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the 1st Amendment, make it clear that the President cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when enforcing immigration law.
Except an understanding of the norms of the judiciary, the balance of powers, the Constitution, etc etc
I see no indication that you recognized how rare impeachment is, or what the standards are, or that federal judges don't get impeached because rulings were overturned, or because of their views on the Constitution or jurisprudence.
I also made it clear that the judges were in fact applying the law. You personally may not like what they've done, and it is entirely plausible the SCOTUS will disagree with their assessment. However, it is very clear they were not making up the law on the spot, or inventing new federally protected rights, or doing anything that merits impeachment.
And I concur that the President has a great deal of latitude to protect the US. That does not mean the President has unlimited powers to do whatever he wants on that basis.
Apparently, neither does the Trump administration.
It's the job of the administration, in its briefs, to convince the court that there is an imminent threat that justifies such emergency conditions. Since there were no terrorists coming from those nations, right off the bat that's a hard sell.
Actually, that's not correct. The Constitution applies to anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the United States. You don't have to be a citizen to be protected by the Constitution, including non-citizens.
:roll:
I answer as much as I can, given the character limits. I'm already letting you drag me into issues completely unrelated to the OP as it is.
Were the 7 nations identified in Donald Trump's travel ban named by Barack Obama as terror hotbeds? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
1) Trump made it very clear that his intention was to ban Muslims, and various statements made during the campaign and after his election support that understanding of his intent.
2) The Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the 1st Amendment, make it clear that the President cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when enforcing immigration law.
Or, we can see it in the rejection of Jim Crow laws. Those laws did not specifically state "we don't want black people to vote," but there was no question about the intent.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The Administration is demanding that the EO go into effect immediately. They believe the stay on the EO should be overturned, because it is urgent to enact the ban immediately. However, they failed to convince numerous courts of the urgency of the issue. Thus, the courts are saying that the constitutional and legal issues are serious, and that there is no need to put the ban into place while the EO is under review.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
The states claim that they are being harmed by the federal policy. This gives them standing, as well as a reason to object to the policy. Again, this is the same argument used by the states when they sued Obama for deferring deportations.
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
What they are saying is that Trump's specific executive orders are unconstitutional, for the reasons outlined above.
If your interpretation is correct, then 15 federal judges would be impeached per year... instead of 1 every 15 years.
It is patently obvious that you didn't even bother to look up any of the history of the impeachment of federal judges, let alone read any of the rulings, before you hauled off and predicted they'd be impeached.
And as I have probably mentioned before: None of what you're suggesting changes the following:
• Trump's approval rating is very low
• His approval rate should be higher, as he ought to be in a honeymoon period
• Historically speaking, it is more likely than not that Republicans will lose seats in 2018
• Given the AHCA debacle, 2018 is even less certain than before
• If there is a repeat of this when it comes to tax reform, the Republican Party is going to have very serious problems moving forward
You fail to understand the argument.
The states claim that they are being harmed by the federal policy. This gives them standing, as well as a reason to object to the policy. Again, this is the same argument used by the states when they sued Obama for deferring deportations.
Thanks for begging the question.
Just to be clear, are you saying that it was legal and acceptable for Obama to defer deportations of large numbers of unauthorized immigrants indefinitely?
Because you're ignoring this part:
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
The courts are not, in any way shape or form, attempting to overturn the *cough* the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
What they are saying is that Trump's specific executive orders are unconstitutional, for the reasons outlined above.
Riiiiight
If your interpretation is correct, then 15 federal judges would be impeached per year... instead of 1 every 15 years.
It is patently obvious that you didn't even bother to look up any of the history of the impeachment of federal judges, let alone read any of the rulings, before you hauled off and predicted they'd be impeached.
Did you also expect Trump and Congress to repeal the ACA within Trump's first 100 days?
And as I have probably mentioned before: None of what you're suggesting changes the following:
• Trump's approval rating is very low
• His approval rate should be higher, as he ought to be in a honeymoon period
• Historically speaking, it is more likely than not that Republicans will lose seats in 2018
• Given the AHCA debacle, 2018 is even less certain than before
• If there is a repeat of this when it comes to tax reform, the Republican Party is going to have very serious problems moving forward
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
#2 No, what that particular passage alludes to is regards the normal business of the establishing of quotas in the 1965 Act, which does not countermand the 212 (f) of the law speaking about the president's express powers under the 1952 Act...besides which, the very next sentence of the 1962 Act makes it very clear that, if the executive branch wants to, it can limit immigration as it clearly goes on to state, " Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed."
Check. Mate.
Again, just because nobody's feet have been held to the fire on what extra Constitutional efforts were made to rid us, thank god, of the Democrat scourge of Jim Crow, does not mean that is how the law and/or the Constitution actually provide.
All you are saying there is that because of ideological blinders some judges on the federal bench will not see any urgency unless the death and destruction has already been accomplished, they personally do not like Trump nor the new administration's policies, they are putting up these false roadblocks.
For that they should be impeached and removed.
As to your #1, does not matter what Trump said before. Prove to me, explicitly, under any statute, law or the Constitution where it does. Don't give me examples of where its been allowed, not because of any requirement, but because the other side did not push back hard enough under that which is Constitutional.
#2 No, what that particular passage alludes to is regards the normal business of the establishing of quotas in the 1965 Act, which does not countermand the 212 (f) of the law speaking about the president's express powers under the 1952 Act...besides which, the very next sentence of the 1962 Act makes it very clear that, if the executive branch wants to, it can limit immigration as it clearly goes on to state, " Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed."
Check. Mate.
Again, just because nobody's feet have been held to the fire on what extra Constitutional efforts were made to rid us, thank god, of the Democrat scourge of Jim Crow, does not mean that is how the law and/or the Constitution actually provide.
All you are saying there is that because of ideological blinders some judges on the federal bench will not see any urgency unless the death and destruction has already been accomplished, they personally do not like Trump nor the new administration's policies, they are putting up these false roadblocks.
For that they should be impeached and removed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
I don't beg anything, I just state the truth.
I didn't say much of anything about the bomb, just about what the courts are allowed and not. If an identical action by the courts were performed, the court is wrong.
See the above reply as to discrimination and the power, given in the same law, of the executive branch, specifically the Secy of State, which will not be limited by that 1965 Act.
Why are you *coughing*? Doctor checking your balls? The executive branch retained its powers as, again, was stated above.
Jesus, how do you arrive at your reasoning [read: unreasoning] and your faulty math? What is in fact the truth is that the impeachment of judges should occur if and when judges have committed an impeachable offense. That too complex to permeate the brain barrier?
Wow, you from Australia? Your kangroo logic of jumping to odd conclusions makes you sound way down underish. I skimmed the reasons for impeachments... has no bearing on future rationale for impeachments... so who cares? You only, for what reason heaven only knows.
No, I hoped he could, but expect it? Nah, it took the bomb what, 8 months to pass the disatorous plague on Americans. Something we did not want and was jammed down our throats? How long and complex was that stacked high crap sandwich?
As stated, Trump was not allowed any honeymoon. The bomb's lasted 8 years.
You can hope, wish, doing voodoo incantations all you want... Trump will be successful. This last disappointment was a good educational exercise, he now has a better idea of the true battlefield and who are his true allies and enemies. There will be new strategies and alliances formed. Carrot and stick, just like you folks.
Actions mean more than your skewed polls. Remember Briexit and election 2016. Polls, they are so meaningful... ha ha ah ha ha hah ahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaaa
No, you are just making an argument, as are the judges, that has no merit.
I don't beg anything, I just state the truth.
I didn't say much of anything about the bomb, just about what the courts are allowed and not. If an identical action by the courts were performed, the court is wrong.
See the above reply as to discrimination and the power, given in the same law, of the executive branch, specifically the Secy of State, which will not be limited by that 1965 Act.
Why are you *coughing*? Doctor checking your balls? The executive branch retained its powers as, again, was stated above.
Jesus, how do you arrive at your reasoning [read: unreasoning] and your faulty math? What is in fact the truth is that the impeachment of judges should occur if and when judges have committed an impeachable offense. That too complex to permeate the brain barrier?
Wow, you from Australia? Your kangroo logic of jumping to odd conclusions makes you sound way down underish. I skimmed the reasons for impeachments... has no bearing on future rationale for impeachments... so who cares? You only, for what reason heaven only knows.
No, I hoped he could, but expect it? Nah, it took the bomb what, 8 months to pass the disatorous plague on Americans. Something we did not want and was jammed down our throats? How long and complex was that stacked high crap sandwich?
As stated, Trump was not allowed any honeymoon. The bomb's lasted 8 years.
You can hope, wish, doing voodoo incantations all you want... Trump will be successful. This last disappointment was a good educational exercise, he now has a better idea of the true battlefield and who are his true allies and enemies. There will be new strategies and alliances formed. Carrot and stick, just like you folks.
Actions mean more than your skewed polls. Remember Briexit and election 2016. Polls, they are so meaningful... ha ha ah ha ha hah ahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaaa
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2017
- Messages
- 4,592
- Reaction score
- 2,283
- Location
- South Western Mississippi
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Trump's approval ratings will continue to drop. That happens when you are incompetent.
Trump's approval ratings will continue to drop. That happens when you are incompetent.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
They also often look to precedent, not just to aid in understanding the Constitution, but how to interpret it. A relevant example is Yick Wo v. Hopkins:
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, and SSoon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703.
Normally, this is a difficult standard to establish. However, Trump explicitly said he wants to bar Muslims from entering the US; he chose nations that are almost exclusively populated by Muslims; he explicitly said he'd favor "religious minorities" (read: Christians) who apply; and said that the 2nd version was materially the same as the 1st. I.e. he has given those challenging the case a lot of ammunition to prove that the intent is discriminatory.
Note that I'm not saying "the SCOTUS will agree." But at a minimum, it is a plausible legal argument, well grounded in the immigration law, the Constitution, precedent, and common philosophies of jurisprudence. None of which Trump seems to understand, by the way.
The President does have the power to block an entire nation from immigrating. However, it cannot do so when the intent is to discriminate against a religion. And if he wants to do it on an emergency basis, he may need to justify it to the courts, especially if a state can prove standing and harm.
I know this may shock you, but: Political parties change. Heck, this may be happening right now, as the Republican party may be changing from a party bifurcated into fiscal conservatives (elitists who exist primarily to provide tax cuts, scale back regulations, promote free trade and favor the wealthy) and social conservatives (who demand that the state regulate behavior, particularly in regards to sex, drugs n' religion) into a populist, anti-elitist, nativist, authoritarian party.
So no, merely saying "Democrats bad!" has no meaning here, and does not advance your argument one iota.
Yes, the Democratic Party during the Jim Crow era were segregationists (and worse). And if you go back just a few years earlier, it was the Republicans who enthusiastically regulated businesses, and "trust busted" companies that were too large.
What I'm saying is:
• The administration did not even try to demonstrate any urgency or imminent threat. If they had actual proof that, for example, there was an active terrorist plot in Sudan, and that blocking all immigration and asylum requests from Sudan on a temporary basis would prevent an attack, the courts would give that serious consideration.
• It is clear that the President cannot discriminate against immigrants on the basis of religion.
• There is more than enough here to show that the emergency stay on the EO is justified.
• If you genuinely believe that the emergency stay is an impeachable offense, then the most polite way to put it is: You are utterly and completely ignorant not just of how the federal judiciary operates, not just of the history of impeachment (for which you have no excuse), not just the norms of the judiciary, but the basic concept of the balance of powers.
The Constitution does not specify ANY tests or methods of Constitutional interpretation.
They also often look to precedent, not just to aid in understanding the Constitution, but how to interpret it. A relevant example is Yick Wo v. Hopkins:
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, and SSoon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703.
Normally, this is a difficult standard to establish. However, Trump explicitly said he wants to bar Muslims from entering the US; he chose nations that are almost exclusively populated by Muslims; he explicitly said he'd favor "religious minorities" (read: Christians) who apply; and said that the 2nd version was materially the same as the 1st. I.e. he has given those challenging the case a lot of ammunition to prove that the intent is discriminatory.
Note that I'm not saying "the SCOTUS will agree." But at a minimum, it is a plausible legal argument, well grounded in the immigration law, the Constitution, precedent, and common philosophies of jurisprudence. None of which Trump seems to understand, by the way.
Nope, sorry, wrong. The limits in the 1965 act do overrule the 1952 act.
The President does have the power to block an entire nation from immigrating. However, it cannot do so when the intent is to discriminate against a religion. And if he wants to do it on an emergency basis, he may need to justify it to the courts, especially if a state can prove standing and harm.
I know this may shock you, but: Political parties change. Heck, this may be happening right now, as the Republican party may be changing from a party bifurcated into fiscal conservatives (elitists who exist primarily to provide tax cuts, scale back regulations, promote free trade and favor the wealthy) and social conservatives (who demand that the state regulate behavior, particularly in regards to sex, drugs n' religion) into a populist, anti-elitist, nativist, authoritarian party.
So no, merely saying "Democrats bad!" has no meaning here, and does not advance your argument one iota.
The Partisan Force is strong with you
Yes, the Democratic Party during the Jim Crow era were segregationists (and worse). And if you go back just a few years earlier, it was the Republicans who enthusiastically regulated businesses, and "trust busted" companies that were too large.
Incorrect.
What I'm saying is:
• The administration did not even try to demonstrate any urgency or imminent threat. If they had actual proof that, for example, there was an active terrorist plot in Sudan, and that blocking all immigration and asylum requests from Sudan on a temporary basis would prevent an attack, the courts would give that serious consideration.
• It is clear that the President cannot discriminate against immigrants on the basis of religion.
• There is more than enough here to show that the emergency stay on the EO is justified.
• If you genuinely believe that the emergency stay is an impeachable offense, then the most polite way to put it is: You are utterly and completely ignorant not just of how the federal judiciary operates, not just of the history of impeachment (for which you have no excuse), not just the norms of the judiciary, but the basic concept of the balance of powers.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Sorry dude, but when we are discussing the merits of the case, and you presume you are correct, and use that to dispute a point? That's begging the question.
Was it legal for Obama, via an executive order, to indefinitely defer deportations for selected unauthorized immigrants?
If you believe that Trump's EO is valid, then that view entails that Obama's EO was also valid.
2) We care, because no one benefits by drumming out judges based on partisan attacks, as you so clearly advocate. Keep in mind that if those judges can be impeached for that ruling, then there are plenty of conservative judges who can be impeached for similar reasons, and the end result is that the federal judiciary will be eviscerated.
3) The Constitution lays out the reasons for impeachment. "Pissing off conservatives who don't understand the law" is not one of them.
[iimg]http://www.chrisweigant.com/cw/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1603bho.jpg[/img]
The reality is that the only way he can get anything passed is to break the Hastert rule, and work with Democrats. The Freedom Caucus is emboldened by this, and is not paying a political price for sinking the AHCA, so that's pretty much it. That might happen, or... it might not.
As noted earlier: Clinton won the election by 3 million votes. The polls were basically within the margin of error. She basically lost the election by around 80,000 votes. Polls didn't pick up on it, because so many people were deciding at the last minute. Brexit was also extremely close, and highly contested even after the vote.
And while the precision of the numbers may leave a false impression, it sure looks like Trump is not improving his popularity. This could certainly change. However, Trump boosters have been promising for nearly 2 years now that he will change, he will mature, he will get better, this time the reset is real, and... within 2 days, he goes back to attacking movie stars on Twitter.
Considering that you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the rulings? Not persuasive.
lol
Sorry dude, but when we are discussing the merits of the case, and you presume you are correct, and use that to dispute a point? That's begging the question.
No, what you've done is avoid answering the question.
Was it legal for Obama, via an executive order, to indefinitely defer deportations for selected unauthorized immigrants?
If you believe that Trump's EO is valid, then that view entails that Obama's EO was also valid.
And again... ad hominem attacks are not an argument; and you've shown many times now that you do not understand how and why the barrier for impeaching judges is exceptionally high.
1) see above re: ad homs
2) We care, because no one benefits by drumming out judges based on partisan attacks, as you so clearly advocate. Keep in mind that if those judges can be impeached for that ruling, then there are plenty of conservative judges who can be impeached for similar reasons, and the end result is that the federal judiciary will be eviscerated.
3) The Constitution lays out the reasons for impeachment. "Pissing off conservatives who don't understand the law" is not one of them.
Egads. That's not even REMOTELY true. Obama's approval rating started very high (as is the case for most, but not all, recent Presidents), fell in the first year, and then went up and down during his term.
[iimg]http://www.chrisweigant.com/cw/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1603bho.jpg[/img]
....or, he has no idea how to govern, and can't even convince the Republicans to do something they've wanted to do for 7 years.
The reality is that the only way he can get anything passed is to break the Hastert rule, and work with Democrats. The Freedom Caucus is emboldened by this, and is not paying a political price for sinking the AHCA, so that's pretty much it. That might happen, or... it might not.
:roll:
As noted earlier: Clinton won the election by 3 million votes. The polls were basically within the margin of error. She basically lost the election by around 80,000 votes. Polls didn't pick up on it, because so many people were deciding at the last minute. Brexit was also extremely close, and highly contested even after the vote.
And while the precision of the numbers may leave a false impression, it sure looks like Trump is not improving his popularity. This could certainly change. However, Trump boosters have been promising for nearly 2 years now that he will change, he will mature, he will get better, this time the reset is real, and... within 2 days, he goes back to attacking movie stars on Twitter.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
He exploded/imploded on the scene for 8 straight years. So the poll skewing is not a proof of much of anything from a now discredited group of chicken entrails observers...
They might actually be able to come somewhere near the truth, they are just not sharing that with us.
That is proven false as it did not reflect in the polls with the former president, the proven incompetent, o bomb.
He exploded/imploded on the scene for 8 straight years. So the poll skewing is not a proof of much of anything from a now discredited group of chicken entrails observers...
They might actually be able to come somewhere near the truth, they are just not sharing that with us.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of
Well, one compliment first. Hat tip on the concession that there is no specification that can be directed by the courts as to how a President MUST perform his/her Constitutional duties.
But just what is it about these folks not being from OUR nation, their not being IN our country [ as you agreed the framework of governing covers only our jurisdictions], what is it that you do not get about the President has a duty UNDER our Constitution to protect AMERICAN CITIZENS?
Judges don't get to countermand, for purely harebrained and ideological reasons having no basis in our Constitution, the President of the United States on matters of national security. They just don't. They can try, they are a co equal branch, but, for one, they have no powers of enforcement nor do they have the majority of Congress on their side. So what you are promoting is a showdown between a couple of individual liberal judges not elected by the nation and the only two national elected candidates the nation has, President and VP.
Deal with it, the President has the majority of a non suicidal nation on his side... check the most recent election results, yano?
What you fail to understand is that the progressive leaning of the nation has ended and the pendulum has swung back the other way. Just as it swung in your direction for quite a while before it went overboard, subjected the nation to many self inflicted indignities and put us in unnecessary danger... that shallow, chaos promoting and dangerous approach has been identified and properly voted out of power.
The Congress, our national legislature can do a lot with regards the judiciary, its make up and structure as provided by the Constitution... and the power to impeach for overstep. That you refuse to see that, that you attempt, for your own purely ideological reasons, to put narrow guidelines, handcuff the power of our national legislature to check a rogue judiciary is, well, comical in a naive, pat one on the head and tell one to run along, go out and play kind of way.
So, show me anywhere that it is stated, with any true authority, what you are saying about the 1965 vs the 1952 Acts... it says right in the 1965 act, in the sentence following the one you quoted on "discrimination" that the powers of the Secy of State are not in any way limited...and the SoS, you will remember, is executive branch position reporting to the president and so is under the control of the president.
Deal with it.
Uh, your powers of analysis and explication of what is actually going on in the nation and in particular with the Republican party, just as with your running down Alice in Wonderland rabbit holes on the powers of individual ideologically motivated judges, is dubious at its very best. Putting up cartoon caricatures of arguments against is, evidently, the best you can manage.
Recess is over.
Dooood.
Well, one compliment first. Hat tip on the concession that there is no specification that can be directed by the courts as to how a President MUST perform his/her Constitutional duties.
But just what is it about these folks not being from OUR nation, their not being IN our country [ as you agreed the framework of governing covers only our jurisdictions], what is it that you do not get about the President has a duty UNDER our Constitution to protect AMERICAN CITIZENS?
Judges don't get to countermand, for purely harebrained and ideological reasons having no basis in our Constitution, the President of the United States on matters of national security. They just don't. They can try, they are a co equal branch, but, for one, they have no powers of enforcement nor do they have the majority of Congress on their side. So what you are promoting is a showdown between a couple of individual liberal judges not elected by the nation and the only two national elected candidates the nation has, President and VP.
Deal with it, the President has the majority of a non suicidal nation on his side... check the most recent election results, yano?
What you fail to understand is that the progressive leaning of the nation has ended and the pendulum has swung back the other way. Just as it swung in your direction for quite a while before it went overboard, subjected the nation to many self inflicted indignities and put us in unnecessary danger... that shallow, chaos promoting and dangerous approach has been identified and properly voted out of power.
The Congress, our national legislature can do a lot with regards the judiciary, its make up and structure as provided by the Constitution... and the power to impeach for overstep. That you refuse to see that, that you attempt, for your own purely ideological reasons, to put narrow guidelines, handcuff the power of our national legislature to check a rogue judiciary is, well, comical in a naive, pat one on the head and tell one to run along, go out and play kind of way.
So, show me anywhere that it is stated, with any true authority, what you are saying about the 1965 vs the 1952 Acts... it says right in the 1965 act, in the sentence following the one you quoted on "discrimination" that the powers of the Secy of State are not in any way limited...and the SoS, you will remember, is executive branch position reporting to the president and so is under the control of the president.
Deal with it.
Uh, your powers of analysis and explication of what is actually going on in the nation and in particular with the Republican party, just as with your running down Alice in Wonderland rabbit holes on the powers of individual ideologically motivated judges, is dubious at its very best. Putting up cartoon caricatures of arguments against is, evidently, the best you can manage.
Recess is over.