YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:(

;D

Quote:

US President Donald Trump has fired the acting US Attorney General Sally Yates, after she defied him over his controversial travel ban. Ms Yates had ordered Justice Department lawyers not to enforce the US President's immigration ban targeting seven Muslim-majority nations. The White House said that she would be replaced by Dana Boente, who is currently US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The President also sacked acting director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Daniel Ragsdale, without giving a reason why. Thomas Holman was announced as his acting replacement. Press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement that Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. Ms Yates, who had been appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, told Justice Department lawyers in a letter on Monday that they would not defend Mr Trump's travel order in court. She had said that she did not believe the order would be 'consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what's right'. She also said that she was not convinced that the order was 'lawful'. The order put a 120-day hold on allowing refugees into the country and banned refugees from Syria indefinitely. It also barred citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. Mr Spicer, however, described Ms Yates as 'weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration'. He added: 'It is time to get serious about protecting our country. 'Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. 'It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.' Mr Boente will serve as acting attorney general until the Senate confirms Senator Jeff Sessions as his permanent replacement, a process that Mr Spicer said was being held up by Democratic senators 'for strictly political reasons'. Mr Boente was quoted in the statement as saying that he would 'defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected'. Boris Johnson tells the House of Commons that Donald Trump"s "bark is worse than his bite" The firing of Ms Yates comes amid growing dissent among senior Government officials about the travel ban, with some of Mr Trump's top advisers and fellow Republicans saying they had not been consulted about the policy. Defense Secretary James Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department, have told associates they were not aware of the details of the order until around the time Mr Trump signed it. On Monday, a large group of US diplomats signed a memo criticising the order but Mr Spicer was unmoved by the growing opposition, saying: 'They should either get with the program or they can go'. Meanwhile, federal judges in New York and several other states have issued orders temporarily blocking the government from deporting people with valid visas who arrived after the ban started. Washington state's attorney general has said he is suing Mr Trump over the order and the Council on American-Islamic Relations is doing the same, saying the order appears to favour Christian refugees over Muslim ones. The courts face a complicated situation - federal law gives the President power to stop 'any class of aliens' from entering if he thinks their entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the US'.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 5:27pm:

YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D

I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide...

trump still thinks he's on a reality tv show  :D :D :D :D

Like Obama..

she (Obama's Stooge) needs to get out of the way so that the country can be secured..

Move Bitch.. get out the way..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tsik4EEgiY

Makes no sense Mechanic.  Sack the expert people you have to advise you on expert matters way beyond your own ken, because you don't like the advice.  Yeas.

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Makes no sense Mechanic.  Sack the expert people you have to advise you on expert matters way beyond your own ken, because you don't like the advice.  Yeas.

there was no advice Aussie..

she took it upon herself to go over the head of the President and his Executive orders...

I'd have sacked the bitch as well....

Bloody Obama stooge..  >:(

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 5:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:49pm: Makes no sense Mechanic.  Sack the expert people you have to advise you on expert matters way beyond your own ken, because you don't like the advice.  Yeas. there was no advice Aussie.. she took it upon herself to go over the head of the President and his Executive orders... I'd have sacked the bitch as well.... Bloody Obama stooge..  >:(

You can bet there was.

Further, the decision of the Court vindicated her position.

Everybody else gets the sack when they do what they want at work. Why not her?

Either get with the Program or go...

we're only talking about 110 people a day..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB35ikvGNgM

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 5:42pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide...

Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 5:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:49pm: Makes no sense Mechanic.  Sack the expert people you have to advise you on expert matters way beyond your own ken, because you don't like the advice.  Yeas. there was no advice Aussie.. she took it upon herself to go over the head of the President and his Executive orders... I'd have sacked the bitch as well.... Bloody Obama stooge..  >:(

actually, you brain-dead stooge, the AG owes her primary allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION which over-rides the PResident every time. She refused to do something she believed was contrary to law and the constitution. You seem to believe Turmp as all power to do absolutely anything like a poor 1930s german applauding Hitler.

you are a cretin.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Everybody else gets the sack when they do what they want at work. Why not her?

If your boss asked you to do something ILLEGAL, would you?

serious question. WOULD YOU DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL IF YOUR BOSS DEMANDED IT?

..

[media width=575]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB35ikvGNgM[/media]


The Court ordered stays & injunctions only affect a small percentage of those held, & they are only temporary, those who were required to return to their place of departure, will eventually have to depart.....No permanent Court orders were made, nor were any being contemplated to put in force.

As soon as the few bumps are ironed out, & the stays have expired, President Trump's Orders will be carried out with less fanfare & mishap........but carried out they will be.

Disagreeing officials in Trump's Administration held over from the Obamanation, will be fired summarily, & replaced within hardly a blink of an eye....    http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif

Panther wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 6:29pm:

.. [media width=575]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB35ikvGNgM[/media] The Court ordered stays & injunctions only affect a small percentage of those held, & they are only temporary, those who were required to return to their place of departure, will eventually have to depart.....No permanent Court orders were made, nor were any being contemplated to put in force. As soon as the few bumps are ironed out, & the stays have expired, President Trump's Orders will be carried out with less fanfare & mishap........but carried out they will be.

You seem to be blissfully unaware that a lot of countries -like Australia - have already arranged exemptions to this silly edict. So it is certainly being altered. And the court made a TEMPORARY stay while further legal attempts will be made to render it or parts of it unconstitutional via the Supreme Court.

So the battle against the Fuehrer i already underway.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 6:32pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:29pm: .. [media width=575]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB35ikvGNgM[/media] The Court ordered stays & injunctions only affect a small percentage of those held, & they are only temporary, those who were required to return to their place of departure, will eventually have to depart.....No permanent Court orders were made, nor were any being contemplated to put in force. As soon as the few bumps are ironed out, & the stays have expired, President Trump's Orders will be carried out with less fanfare & mishap........but carried out they will be. You seem to be blissfully unaware that a lot of countries -like Australia - have already arranged exemptions to this silly edict. So it is certainly being altered. And the court made a TEMPORARY stay while further legal attempts will be made to render it or parts of it unconstitutional via the Supreme Court. So the battle against the Fuehrer i already underway.

Well, until ruled Unconstitutional, which I sincerely doubt even with only an 8 member court.....a 4-4 deadlock does not render a law unconstitutional, so the Presidential Orders will remain the law.....& enforced to their fullest extent.

President Trump has vowed not to back down, so if one order fails, another, then another, then another will follow infinitum.   ;D

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 5:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:49pm: Makes no sense Mechanic.  Sack the expert people you have to advise you on expert matters way beyond your own ken, because you don't like the advice.  Yeas. there was no advice Aussie.. she took it upon herself to go over the head of the President and his Executive orders... I'd have sacked the bitch as well.... Bloody Obama stooge..  >:(

It is her job to choose to defend or not defend a case based on merit, not who put it forward.

In her view the legislation was on very shaky ground and probably not legal, she would have been breaching her oath of office had she chosen to defend the case.

The job or the Attorney-General is not to please the President or to rubber stamp what he puts forward.

The worlds worst ever President has behaved badly and embarrassed himself yet again.

Anybody else think Spicer looks like the bloke who been infected in a zombie apocalypse movie but is keeping it hidden from the rest of the group.

Raven wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 8:20pm:

Anybody else think Spicer looks like the bloke who been infected in a zombie apocalypse movie but is keeping it hidden from the rest of the group.

Nah.

Just not taking the usual shite any more. Shocking to all the guardianistas and fairfaxers but not to  the well-adjusted.

Frank wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 6:15pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'.

If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General...

History proved Richardson right.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right.

Don't need 'history' in this matter.  She was vindicated immediately by the Court.  Wonder of Trump will now move to sack the Judge....if he can.

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 8:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Don't need 'history' in this matter.  She was vindicated immediately by the Court.  Wonder of Trump will now move to sack the Judge....if he can.

True, history is not the arbiter, but it is the chronicler of American sensibility...

And Americans are usually deeply impressed by the 'lone warrior' who peacefully stands up for what is right...

History may record this as the first death knell of the Trump Administration.

If this plays out the way it might, then Justice Department employees may walk out on strike or through mass resignations...

State Dept. Officials Should Quit if They Disagree With Trump, White House Warns

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sean-spicer-state-dept-travel-ban.html?_r=0

DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right.

Fine.

Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go.

She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is.

How long before Congress covertly asks Pence to ready himself for the top job...

Or has it happened already?

Frank wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:23pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Fine. Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go. She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is.

The Court said it was not a lawful directive.  Why don't you understand that?

Frank wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:23pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Fine. Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go. She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is.

OK... But maybe, unlike Richardson, she wants history to remember her as one who defied an errant President...

Either way, Trump has made an enemy out of his own choice for Attorney-General.

So what does that say of the reason he chose her? Not for her integrity, but for her compliancy?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:24pm:

How long before Congress covertly asks Pence to ready himself for the top job...

8 years, give or take a week.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 9:23pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Fine. Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go. She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is. OK... But maybe, unlike Richardson, she wants history to remember her as one who defied an errant President... Either way, Trump has made an enemy out of his own choice for Attorney-General. So what does that say of the reason he chose her? Not for her integrity, but for her compliancy?

Obama picked her you dumb koont. 

She is the acting AG, his pick is Jeff Sessions.

Does that change your suspicions of why she was chosen?

She was his choice, by default.  He did not replace her.

(Not that it matters.  Her decision was vindicated by the Court.)

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:40pm:

She was his choice, by default.  He did not replace her. (Not that it matters.  Her decision was vindicated by the Court.)

Yes.. And now there's blood on the floor.

About as mad a start to a Presidency as if Nixon's Presidency had started in July 1974...

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:40pm:

He did not replace her.

And now he has. 

Obviously she was one of Obamas more competent appointees, lasting a whole week.  Clap clap.

... wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 9:40pm: He did not replace her. And now he has.  Obviously she was one of Obamas more competent appointees, lasting a whole week.  Clap clap.

Who will be next?  The Judge who vindicated her position?

the only thing really interesting about this is her firing indicates the Trump Administration did not consult any legal minds before acting ...

AiA wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 12:46am:

the only thing really interesting about this is her firing indicates the Trump Administration did not consult any legal minds before acting ...

Didn't have to.
All executive actions are carried out by the pres. She was subordinate to Trump. He had every right to sack Yates as she was not performing.
She knew that her job was finished once Sessions is confirmed - just making political chaos.

Richdude wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 1:19am:

AiA wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 12:46am: the only thing really interesting about this is her firing indicates the Trump Administration did not consult any legal minds before acting ... Didn't have to. All executive actions are carried out by the pres. She was subordinate to Trump. He had every right to sack Yates as she was not performing. She knew that her job was finished once Sessions is confirmed - just making political chaos.

You are confused. I am not referring to her firing. I am referring to the Trump Administration not consulting legal experts prior. Yes, they don't have to but, usually do, for obvious reasons.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:24pm:

How long before Congress covertly asks Pence to ready himself for the top job... Or has it happened already?

It was about 20 minutes after the election results came in

Meanwhile...

More and more and MORE lawsuits are being directed against the Trump Administration against his executive order were filed on 1/30/2017 by

1.  American Civil Liberties Union

2. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

and

3. The state of Washington.

Not only that, a grand total of 15 state attorneys general (who are all Democrats) issued a joint statement disclaiming the Muslim ban unconstitutional.

Now more and more states such as New York and California have pending lawsuits on the issue. No question more are to follow.

The Islamic lawsuit is by far the most interesting. Only they have said the truth that Trump's "order" is nothing but a "mass roundup that would dwarf the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II."
http://coloradopreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Amache-Historic-Photo.jpg
Granada Relocation Center - what racist call "good times"

Anyway, I hope the Muslims sue the living poo out of Trump and his joke of an Administration.  After all, initiating mass expulsion of immigrant and non-immigrants whether they are Muslim or not, is sick and makes me feel embarrassed as an American.


bugger this dayglo orange asshole and all he stands for.

AiA wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 12:46am:

the only thing really interesting about this is her firing indicates the Trump Administration did not consult any legal minds before acting ...

you just made that up you lying dickhead...

have you ever presented one FACT to this forum?

you are getting as bad as that idiot Agnes the multi nickname sock...  ::)


Quote:

"This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

and by the way...

this Buzzard has been a setup from the start...

Jeff Sessions should already be doing the job but the Democrats are playing "political games" and putting American lives in danger by holding up his appointment..

but hey.... what goes around comes around..

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 6:32am:

AiA wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 12:46am: the only thing really interesting about this is her firing indicates the Trump Administration did not consult any legal minds before acting ... you just made that up you lying dickhead... have you ever presented one FACT to this forum? you are getting as bad as that idiot Agnes the multi nickname sock...  ::) Quote: "This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

No, cuntholder, you are missing a big part of this story.

When Trump is impeached in 6 to 8 months time I do wonder if all the lawsuits against him will end up having him to liquidate his assets.

Trump Tower will then be the biggest mosque in New York. 8-)

AiA wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 6:45am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 6:32am: AiA wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 12:46am: the only thing really interesting about this is her firing indicates the Trump Administration did not consult any legal minds before acting ... you just made that up you lying dickhead... have you ever presented one FACT to this forum? you are getting as bad as that idiot Agnes the multi nickname sock...  ::) Quote: "This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. No, cuntholder, you are missing a big part of this story.

yet another ONE liner that says nothing..

christ you are as thick as two short planks...

maybe you are Agnes... you are both as equally stupid...

and you could probably add one more name to that list.. John Smith...

never in my life have I seen three people on one forum as equally stupid as you three... dur....  :D

Panther wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 6:29pm:

.. [media width=575]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB35ikvGNgM[/media] The Court ordered stays & injunctions only affect a small percentage of those held, & they are only temporary, those who were required to return to their place of departure, will eventually have to depart.....No permanent Court orders were made, nor were any being contemplated to put in force. As soon as the few bumps are ironed out, & the stays have expired, President Trump's Orders will be carried out with less fanfare & mishap........but carried out they will be. Disagreeing officials in Trump's Administration held over from the Obamanation, will be fired summarily, & replaced within hardly a blink of an eye....    http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif

Congrats Sean Spicer

Marla wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 6:54am:

When Trump is impeached in 6 to 8 months time I do wonder if all the lawsuits against him will end up having him to liquidate his assets. Trump Tower will then be the biggest mosque in New York. 8-)

Well wont that be great.  His family ruined and thousands if employees put out of work, and the 1% of the 1%  get to tighten the noose firther.  What a great outcome eh?

... wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:07pm:

and the 1% of the 1%  get to tighten the noose firther

trump IS part of that 1% of 1%  :D :D

Frank wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:23pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Fine. Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go. She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is.

Still, a LAWFUL directive.

There is a huge doubt about that. One of the Major tests is if the Attorney-General says so.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:13pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 9:23pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Fine. Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go. She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is. Still, a LAWFUL directive. There is a huge doubt about that. One of the Major tests is if the Attorney-General says so.

If it was lawful, it would not have been tampered with by the Court.

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:11pm:

... wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 7:07pm: and the 1% of the 1%  get to tighten the noose firther trump IS part of that 1% of 1%  :D :D

Hang on - all through the campaign i heard people grumbling "dur hes not even dat ruch and...and...and hes not even good at business" greggery even stated he was nore succcessful than President Trump.  Now hes 1% of 1%.  Apparently.

Are we trying to have this both ways as well?

... wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:07pm:

Marla wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 6:54am: When Trump is impeached in 6 to 8 months time I do wonder if all the lawsuits against him will end up having him to liquidate his assets. Trump Tower will then be the biggest mosque in New York. 8-) Well wont that be great.  His family ruined ...

I only feel sorry for the little one - Barry, or whatever his name is.

The others can rot in hell, for all I care.

Especially Beavis & Butthead.

Trump's downfall is going to be glorious.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DByC0Y2qETE

https://youtu.be/xWzOoMNUS2Q

"Are You Calling Him a Liar!?" Sean Spicer Slams Journalist 1/31/17

And explaining why the A-G was sacked

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:33pm:

https://youtu.be/xWzOoMNUS2Q "Are You Calling Him a Liar!?" Sean Spicer Slams Journalist 1/31/17 And explaining why the A-G was sacked

Yes.

Trump is a liar.

All he does is lie (and sexually assault women).

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/24/19/7c/24197cebfddfd66b96f038e8b92d2794.jpg

Biggest lying douche-bag in the history of the world.

Sprint's Hero:

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/trumpvid-750x400.jpg

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 9:27pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 9:23pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right. Fine. Still, a LAWFUL directive. If you can't serve the lawful government and its lawful directives, go. You are not an elected official, so you can go. She should have resigned, if she wanted to be honourable. Waiting to be sacked just shows her to be the poseur she is. The Court said it was not a lawful directive.  Why don't you understand that?

Well, it IS in force.

Why don't you understand that?

Quote:

Well, it IS in force.

No, it is not.  The Court struck out parts of it.

Aussie wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 8:31pm:

Quote: Well, it IS in force. No, it is not.  The Court struck out parts of it.

Show us how, thicko.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31^st, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:42pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 31st, 2017 at 5:27pm: YOU'RE FIRED!!!   >:( ;D I'd hold the laughter for a few days... Sacking (or persecuting) people who turn out to have moral fibre is the first stab of a political suicide... Ms Yates 'has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States'. If she's acted on good conscience (as her post requires) then she has not betrayed the Department of Justice, she has defied an errant President, not dissimilar to Elliot Richardson's resignation as Richard Nixon's Attorney-General... History proved Richardson right.

If you could show how Trump's directive was unlawful, you might have a case.

But you can't so you don't.  You are just seething.

And I love it.   

Your suffering for years is really your reason to exist.  You are totally f**g awful when in power but your suffering while out of power is worth anything.  If Trump's presidency continues to drive you out of what you are pleased to call your minds I hope he is prez for decades.

Your reaction, in all its glorious stupidity, is THE reason to have Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Orban, Klaus and the rest of them. Your every lamenting and Eeyoorish post confirms that Trump is right.

You'd better shut up because people like you make Trump et al attractive and powerful.

  +1    http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/monkeythumbwinkerbi5.gif

Frank wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Quote: Well, it IS in force. No, it is not.  The Court struck out parts of it. Show us how, thicko.

You could have bought a news paper or turned on a radio or TV any day this week and been told all about it ????

It has been difficult to avoid.

Trump is a cowboy - the lone ranger without a Tonto.

Even with all the noise you guys make you must be getting more and more worried with every one man band decision that circumvents government, democracy sense and logic that this lunatic randomly pulls out from Uranus.

At the moment this goose is providing government by twitter and that is as good as it will get. Childish tweets that would be easily bettered by a below average 10 year old.

You would have thought that an American president would stoop to making nasty tweets about a foreign leader who is one of the major allies of the USA. This is just purely childish behaviour.

What bunch of idiots voted for a president that requires regular nappy changes.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:06pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Quote: Well, it IS in force. No, it is not.  The Court struck out parts of it. Show us how, thicko. You could have bought a news paper or turned on a radio or TV any day this week and been told all about it ???? It has been difficult to avoid.

I did. Nothing about a court striking out parts of the directive.

Donald Trump is on no 'reality show' John

He is C.E.O. of the strongest western nation in the world. If he finds a Judas in his camp, then they are for the high jump every time.

You will see more of this as Trump's camp identifies the 'enemies within'.

They will be weeded out and expelled. The only sure course of action if you don't want to be white anted from within.

red baron wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 10:51am:

......You will see more of this as Trump's camp identifies the 'enemies within'. They will be weeded out and expelled. The only sure course of action if you don't want to be white anted from within.

http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/executioner01.gif         ~~ or ~~ http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/2mafiahit02.gif

Well Trumps position failed another hurdle ?

It is looking like the AG's decision was probably right.

Wonder if she can take action if she is ultimately proven to have been correct and made a good decision ?

trump fails again and his ban is revoked, probably permanently.

looks like those separation of powers are working. wasn't trump's america supposed to be fascist.

It's as simple as writing another Executive order.

Meanwhile, the snakes in the grass have shown themselves to Trump, and the greater public.

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:25am:

It's as simple as writing another Executive order. Meanwhile, the snakes in the grass have shown themselves to Trump, and the greater public.

When at first you don't succeed, try, try again......



The Left would spit the dummy & cry out......but that isn't fair!!

https://i.imgsafe.org/e6c784587a.jpg

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:25am:

It's as simple as writing another Executive order. Meanwhile, the snakes in the grass have shown themselves to Trump, and the greater public.

And it will just as quickly get squashed.  Perhaps all Trump needs to do is abide by the constitution and hire people who've actually read it.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:25am: It's as simple as writing another Executive order. Meanwhile, the snakes in the grass have shown themselves to Trump, and the greater public. And it will just as quickly get squashed.  Perhaps all Trump needs to do is abide by the constitution and hire people who've actually read it.

Thats the spirit - keep your chin up.

You are however, woefully uninformed.  Over 80% of the 9th circuit rulings that go to the supreme court are overturned, because they are activists not constitutionalists. 

This was merely Trumps magnanimous opening offer - in a month or two your band of losers will be wishing they'd taken it.

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 1:10pm: ... wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:25am: It's as simple as writing another Executive order. Meanwhile, the snakes in the grass have shown themselves to Trump, and the greater public. And it will just as quickly get squashed.  Perhaps all Trump needs to do is abide by the constitution and hire people who've actually read it. Thats the spirit - keep your chin up. You are however, woefully uninformed.  Over 80% of the 9th circuit rulings that go to the supreme court are overturned, because they are activists not constitutionalists.  This was merely Trumps magnanimous opening offer - in a month or two your band of losers will be wishing they'd taken it.

As disturbing as it is that Supreme Court rulings are so often based on political affiliation, the current number is 4-4 so you will lose... AGAIN.

Get used to it!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:

Get used to it!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

A never trumper saying "get used to it".

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 1:32pm: Get used to it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D A never trumper saying "get used to it".

The checks and balances of the USA system are quite formidable. Trump just ran into one - and lost.

And it is his own words that are coming back to haunt him because his 'muslim ban' is something he is on record as saying and is utterly unconstitutional. His executive order has been interpreted as the start of a mulim ban by the courts by Trumps own admission. This is where he is losing - his own big mouth.

Trump Says New Immigration Action Coming:
"You'll Be Seeing Something Next Week"



Source:      ZEROHEDGE    
Quote:

Earlier this morning we noted rising speculation among various mainstream media outlets that the Trump White House was planning to make modifications to its immigration ban executive order in response to its recent unanimous defeat in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the White House had remained mum of the rumors, President Trump, in a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, just hinted that a new executive order could be coming next week. "We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country; you’ll be seeing that sometime next week," Trump said with Abe by his side. He offered no specifics. As Bloomberg notes, the president’s tone was somewhat less defiant than in the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s 26-page ruling from a three-judge panel, when he tweeted that the decision was "disgraceful" and vowed to press on with legal efforts to reinstate the travel ban. "We are going to keep our country safe," he said on Friday. "We are going to do whatever’s necessary to keep our country safe." He added he would continue to fight for the travel ban in courts, and that "ultimately, I have no doubt we will win that particular case." The Trump administration has argued that states had no right to sue to block the immigration order, and said courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy. But as reported last night, the panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco rejected those arguments, saying that the “federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Moreover, the panel found, the administration had shown “no evidence” that individuals from those seven nations had committed terrorist acts. While Trump could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the ruling would require a five-vote majority among the eight current members. Instead, what now appears likely, is that Trump may issue a new executive order that explicitly omits green-card holders from the travel ban in an effort to head off legal challenges. Here is what we wrote earlier today: After losing last night in a not so shocking 3-0 decision, courtesy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House is rumored to be redrafting its travel ban executive order this morning with more specific language to address concerns raised by the court.  The report of a redraft comes from Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, who cited unnamed sources, so, as always, the information must be taken with a grain of salt.  Here is what Scarborough told viewers earlier this morning:     “I’ve heard from several sources that the White House is right now working on redrafting an executive order but want to make sure that it is tight enough to pass."

As I said earlier, the President's first Action needed some modifications, some tweaking here, & some tweaking there, but eventually a persistant President Trump will have, & the American People will have, the security that was promised, & they both want for America.    "America First"... D.J.T. 



NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!         

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

Trump Says New Immigration Action Coming: "You'll Be Seeing Something Next Week" Source:      ZEROHEDGE     Quote: Earlier this morning we noted rising speculation among various mainstream media outlets that the Trump White House was planning to make modifications to its immigration ban executive order in response to its recent unanimous defeat in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the White House had remained mum of the rumors, President Trump, in a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, just hinted that a new executive order could be coming next week. "We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country; you’ll be seeing that sometime next week," Trump said with Abe by his side. He offered no specifics. As Bloomberg notes, the president’s tone was somewhat less defiant than in the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s 26-page ruling from a three-judge panel, when he tweeted that the decision was "disgraceful" and vowed to press on with legal efforts to reinstate the travel ban. "We are going to keep our country safe," he said on Friday. "We are going to do whatever’s necessary to keep our country safe." He added he would continue to fight for the travel ban in courts, and that "ultimately, I have no doubt we will win that particular case." The Trump administration has argued that states had no right to sue to block the immigration order, and said courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy. But as reported last night, the panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco rejected those arguments, saying that the “federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Moreover, the panel found, the administration had shown “no evidence” that individuals from those seven nations had committed terrorist acts. While Trump could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the ruling would require a five-vote majority among the eight current members. Instead, what now appears likely, is that Trump may issue a new executive order that explicitly omits green-card holders from the travel ban in an effort to head off legal challenges. Here is what we wrote earlier today: After losing last night in a not so shocking 3-0 decision, courtesy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House is rumored to be redrafting its travel ban executive order this morning with more specific language to address concerns raised by the court.  The report of a redraft comes from Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, who cited unnamed sources, so, as always, the information must be taken with a grain of salt.  Here is what Scarborough told viewers earlier this morning:     “I’ve heard from several sources that the White House is right now working on redrafting an executive order but want to make sure that it is tight enough to pass." As I said earlier, the President's first Action needed some modifications, some tweaking here, & some tweaking there, but eventually a persistant President Trump will have, & the American People will have, the security that was promised, & they both want for America.    "America First"... D.J.T.  NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!

closed borders means closed economy.  closed economy means DEAD economy.

fortunately the courts are stopping Trump from being the xenophobic scumbag we all know he is.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:32pm: Trump Says New Immigration Action Coming: "You'll Be Seeing Something Next Week" Source:      ZEROHEDGE     Quote: Earlier this morning we noted rising speculation among various mainstream media outlets that the Trump White House was planning to make modifications to its immigration ban executive order in response to its recent unanimous defeat in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the White House had remained mum of the rumors, President Trump, in a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, just hinted that a new executive order could be coming next week. "We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country; you’ll be seeing that sometime next week," Trump said with Abe by his side. He offered no specifics. As Bloomberg notes, the president’s tone was somewhat less defiant than in the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s 26-page ruling from a three-judge panel, when he tweeted that the decision was "disgraceful" and vowed to press on with legal efforts to reinstate the travel ban. "We are going to keep our country safe," he said on Friday. "We are going to do whatever’s necessary to keep our country safe." He added he would continue to fight for the travel ban in courts, and that "ultimately, I have no doubt we will win that particular case." The Trump administration has argued that states had no right to sue to block the immigration order, and said courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy. But as reported last night, the panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco rejected those arguments, saying that the “federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Moreover, the panel found, the administration had shown “no evidence” that individuals from those seven nations had committed terrorist acts. While Trump could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the ruling would require a five-vote majority among the eight current members. Instead, what now appears likely, is that Trump may issue a new executive order that explicitly omits green-card holders from the travel ban in an effort to head off legal challenges. Here is what we wrote earlier today: After losing last night in a not so shocking 3-0 decision, courtesy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House is rumored to be redrafting its travel ban executive order this morning with more specific language to address concerns raised by the court.  The report of a redraft comes from Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, who cited unnamed sources, so, as always, the information must be taken with a grain of salt.  Here is what Scarborough told viewers earlier this morning:     “I’ve heard from several sources that the White House is right now working on redrafting an executive order but want to make sure that it is tight enough to pass." As I said earlier, the President's first Action needed some modifications, some tweaking here, & some tweaking there, but eventually a persistant President Trump will have, & the American People will have, the security that was promised, & they both want for America.    "America First"... D.J.T.  NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          closed borders means closed economy.  closed economy means DEAD economy. fortunately the courts are stopping Trump from being the xenophobic scumbag we all know he is.

No facts in response, just generalities & meaningless names.....you leftists are all the same....Rather than intellectually disputing the facts within the message because you simply can't, you'd prefer to fail miserably in attempting to childishly attack the messenger! ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:32pm: Trump Says New Immigration Action Coming: "You'll Be Seeing Something Next Week" Source:      ZEROHEDGE     Quote: Earlier this morning we noted rising speculation among various mainstream media outlets that the Trump White House was planning to make modifications to its immigration ban executive order in response to its recent unanimous defeat in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the White House had remained mum of the rumors, President Trump, in a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, just hinted that a new executive order could be coming next week. "We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country; you’ll be seeing that sometime next week," Trump said with Abe by his side. He offered no specifics. As Bloomberg notes, the president’s tone was somewhat less defiant than in the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s 26-page ruling from a three-judge panel, when he tweeted that the decision was "disgraceful" and vowed to press on with legal efforts to reinstate the travel ban. "We are going to keep our country safe," he said on Friday. "We are going to do whatever’s necessary to keep our country safe." He added he would continue to fight for the travel ban in courts, and that "ultimately, I have no doubt we will win that particular case." The Trump administration has argued that states had no right to sue to block the immigration order, and said courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy. But as reported last night, the panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco rejected those arguments, saying that the “federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Moreover, the panel found, the administration had shown “no evidence” that individuals from those seven nations had committed terrorist acts. While Trump could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the ruling would require a five-vote majority among the eight current members. Instead, what now appears likely, is that Trump may issue a new executive order that explicitly omits green-card holders from the travel ban in an effort to head off legal challenges. Here is what we wrote earlier today: After losing last night in a not so shocking 3-0 decision, courtesy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House is rumored to be redrafting its travel ban executive order this morning with more specific language to address concerns raised by the court.  The report of a redraft comes from Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, who cited unnamed sources, so, as always, the information must be taken with a grain of salt.  Here is what Scarborough told viewers earlier this morning:     “I’ve heard from several sources that the White House is right now working on redrafting an executive order but want to make sure that it is tight enough to pass." As I said earlier, the President's first Action needed some modifications, some tweaking here, & some tweaking there, but eventually a persistant President Trump will have, & the American People will have, the security that was promised, & they both want for America.    "America First"... D.J.T.  NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          closed borders means closed economy.  closed economy means DEAD economy. fortunately the courts are stopping Trump from being the xenophobic scumbag we all know he is.

Every new administration has teething troubles. Trump has no intention of a Muslim ban just vetting those that come in. Entirely sensible move. You think another 9/11 is OK? As long as he does not appear xenophobic - huh?

No! What you need to understand in that extremely reactionary brain of yours. Is that America is large enough to trade competitively within its own borders if it has to.
Furthermore we are talking about people here not merchandise.

The US economy doesn't agree with the drivel you write here. The DOW is about 20,100 - a vote of confidence in Trump. Fact!

American public opinion is swinging in behind Trump and I predict (I'm rarely wrong) will continue doing so.
You regressives are finished.

  +1     https://i.imgsafe.org/920fbda.gif

Richdude wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:13am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 4:28pm: Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:32pm: Trump Says New Immigration Action Coming: "You'll Be Seeing Something Next Week" Source:      ZEROHEDGE     Quote: Earlier this morning we noted rising speculation among various mainstream media outlets that the Trump White House was planning to make modifications to its immigration ban executive order in response to its recent unanimous defeat in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the White House had remained mum of the rumors, President Trump, in a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, just hinted that a new executive order could be coming next week. "We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country; you’ll be seeing that sometime next week," Trump said with Abe by his side. He offered no specifics. As Bloomberg notes, the president’s tone was somewhat less defiant than in the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s 26-page ruling from a three-judge panel, when he tweeted that the decision was "disgraceful" and vowed to press on with legal efforts to reinstate the travel ban. "We are going to keep our country safe," he said on Friday. "We are going to do whatever’s necessary to keep our country safe." He added he would continue to fight for the travel ban in courts, and that "ultimately, I have no doubt we will win that particular case." The Trump administration has argued that states had no right to sue to block the immigration order, and said courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy. But as reported last night, the panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco rejected those arguments, saying that the “federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Moreover, the panel found, the administration had shown “no evidence” that individuals from those seven nations had committed terrorist acts. While Trump could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the ruling would require a five-vote majority among the eight current members. Instead, what now appears likely, is that Trump may issue a new executive order that explicitly omits green-card holders from the travel ban in an effort to head off legal challenges. Here is what we wrote earlier today: After losing last night in a not so shocking 3-0 decision, courtesy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House is rumored to be redrafting its travel ban executive order this morning with more specific language to address concerns raised by the court.  The report of a redraft comes from Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, who cited unnamed sources, so, as always, the information must be taken with a grain of salt.  Here is what Scarborough told viewers earlier this morning:     “I’ve heard from several sources that the White House is right now working on redrafting an executive order but want to make sure that it is tight enough to pass." As I said earlier, the President's first Action needed some modifications, some tweaking here, & some tweaking there, but eventually a persistant President Trump will have, & the American People will have, the security that was promised, & they both want for America.    "America First"... D.J.T.  NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          closed borders means closed economy.  closed economy means DEAD economy. fortunately the courts are stopping Trump from being the xenophobic scumbag we all know he is. Every new administration has teething troubles. Trump has no intention of a Muslim ban just vetting those that come in. Entirely sensible move. You think another 9/11 is OK? As long as he does not appear xenophobic - huh? No! What you need to understand in that extremely reactionary brain of yours. Is that America is large enough to trade competitively within its own borders if it has to. Furthermore we are talking about people here not merchandise. The US economy doesn't agree with the drivel you write here. The DOW is about 20,100 - a vote of confidence in Trump. Fact! American public opinion is swinging in behind Trump and I predict (I'm rarely wrong) will continue doing so. You regressives are finished.

  +1     https://i.imgsafe.org/920fbda.gif

Panther wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 4:36pm:

Richdude wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 3:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 4:28pm: Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:32pm: Trump Says New Immigration Action Coming: "You'll Be Seeing Something Next Week" Source:      ZEROHEDGE     Quote: Earlier this morning we noted rising speculation among various mainstream media outlets that the Trump White House was planning to make modifications to its immigration ban executive order in response to its recent unanimous defeat in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the White House had remained mum of the rumors, President Trump, in a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, just hinted that a new executive order could be coming next week. "We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country; you’ll be seeing that sometime next week," Trump said with Abe by his side. He offered no specifics. As Bloomberg notes, the president’s tone was somewhat less defiant than in the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s 26-page ruling from a three-judge panel, when he tweeted that the decision was "disgraceful" and vowed to press on with legal efforts to reinstate the travel ban. "We are going to keep our country safe," he said on Friday. "We are going to do whatever’s necessary to keep our country safe." He added he would continue to fight for the travel ban in courts, and that "ultimately, I have no doubt we will win that particular case." The Trump administration has argued that states had no right to sue to block the immigration order, and said courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy. But as reported last night, the panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco rejected those arguments, saying that the “federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Moreover, the panel found, the administration had shown “no evidence” that individuals from those seven nations had committed terrorist acts. While Trump could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the ruling would require a five-vote majority among the eight current members. Instead, what now appears likely, is that Trump may issue a new executive order that explicitly omits green-card holders from the travel ban in an effort to head off legal challenges. Here is what we wrote earlier today:     “I’ve heard from several sources that the White House is right now working on redrafting an executive order but want to make sure that it is tight enough to pass." As I said earlier, the President's first Action needed some modifications, some tweaking here, & some tweaking there, but eventually a persistant President Trump will have, & the American People will have, the security that was promised, & they both want for America.    "America First"... D.J.T.  NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          NO OPEN BORDERS --- NOW, OR EVER!!!          closed borders means closed economy.  closed economy means DEAD economy. fortunately the courts are stopping Trump from being the xenophobic scumbag we all know he is. Every new administration has teething troubles. Trump has no intention of a Muslim ban just vetting those that come in. Entirely sensible move. You think another 9/11 is OK? As long as he does not appear xenophobic - huh? No! What you need to understand in that extremely reactionary brain of yours. Is that America is large enough to trade competitively within its own borders if it has to. Furthermore we are talking about people here not merchandise. The US economy doesn't agree with the drivel you write here. The DOW is about 20,100 - a vote of confidence in Trump. Fact! American public opinion is swinging in behind Trump and I predict (I'm rarely wrong) will continue doing so. You regressives are finished.   +1     https://i.imgsafe.org/920fbda.gif

public opinion is leaving him in droves. He already has the lowest ratings of any incoming president - not that you'd believe it. Half the Republicans are LITERALLY questioning his sanity and he has bumbled and been more incompetent in just one month than in 8 years of Obama (or Bush).

The Dow has already started dropping as is the US dollar. More and more people are very concerned that they just elected not just a fool, but a mentally ill narcissist who will have to be removed.

Richdude wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:13am:

Is that America is large enough to trade competitively within its own borders if it has to.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



yeah ... OK ::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Richdude wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 3:13am: Is that America is large enough to trade competitively within its own borders if it has to. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D yeah ... OK ::)

How stupid is that idea?????