POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

I ask that anyone that responds, responds respectfully.

This is not really about race, gender, etc under the law stated earlier. This is about religion. I don't think it's right, but it is being attempted. From what I read in the post, religion is fair game, unless something was omitted for whatever reason (accident, slant, whatever). So, some different wording, some spin here and there in the language......there you have it.

Honestly Brent, I don't give a **** if it is technically legal or not. It's a deplorable thing to do. Enough of your "I don't think it's right" B.S. Just come out as a deplorable. You're always defending Trump, but always in a wishy washy "I don't agree, but...." way. Enough.

Idiots that cared more about EMAILZ!!! are as much to blame as the neo nazis that put Bannon in the Oval Office behind the Trump puppet.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Honestly Brent, I don't give a **** if it is technically legal or not. It's a deplorable thing to do. Enough of your "I don't think it's right" B.S. Just come out as a deplorable. You're always defending Trump, but always in a wishy washy "I don't agree, but...." way. Enough.

Idiots that cared more about EMAILZ!!! are as much to blame as the neo nazis that put Bannon in the Oval Office behind the Trump puppet.

Well, I guess you don't understand what "respectfully" means.

What Trump is doing is horrible. The question is, as we are discussing (and Handy's response does a good job of expanding the various points), is it LEGAL? These are two separate issues. Just because one says "Yes, Trump can do that" does NOT mean one agrees with it.

Edit: To put it another way, if the Office Of The President is doing something legal, I'll defend their right to do it until the day I die. I don't care who is in office, I don't care what the act is (I may even think the act is the worst act in history), etc.

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

If you're interested in following the sale of the park land, it's HR 621.


And OH! I missed his follow up bill, HR 622:To terminate the law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management

Because we can't be letting those pesky park Rangers enforce federal laws now, can we?!?

our western federal lands are our nation's greatest treasure. This is just the start. Chaffetz has been pushing for a massive state take over of federal lands in Utah. This would eventually end with massive sell-offs to plug short term budget holes, and a huge increase in oil and mineral development, and a huge loss in outdoor recreational access (which is a multi billion dollar industry in Utah and employs more people than oil and mineral extraction)

These lands are our birthright as americans, and these ******* republicans can't wait to turn them over to oil companies.

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Well, I guess you don't understand what "respectfully" means.

What Trump is doing is horrible. The question is, as we are discussing (and Handy's response does a good job of expanding the various points), is it LEGAL? These are two separate issues. Just because one says "Yes, Trump can do that" does NOT mean one agrees with it.

Edit: To put it another way, if the Office Of The President is doing something legal, I'll defend their right to do it until the day I die. I don't care who is in office, I don't care what the act is (I may even think the act is the worst act in history), etc.

even if he 'can' do it doesn't mean we are going to stand for it.

do you put up a fight against the fascist, Brent? Or do you go along because 'well, I guess he can technically do that'?

You're on the wrong side here.

 

[geezer]

They were already doing a good job before this keeping out many armed forces interpreters. Lots of loopholes and just generally being slow/not caring has meant far less interpreters have been given visas than were allotted.

I recently heard a podcast about this (was it on This American Life?) downright depressing. Those people have entrusted us with their lives only to get shafted.

 

[geezer]

This pile of **** is unraveling faster than I thought he would.
I'm sure his few fans in here will tell me how hes doing what he should though

As of Friday, my one friend was still doubling down: "I think he's the most brilliant president we've ever had; you just don't see the big strategy he's using." But it's surely a bubble stretched thin. It has to be.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

even if he 'can' do it doesn't mean we are going to stand for it.

do you put up a fight against the fascist, Brent? Or do you go along because 'well, I guess he can technically do that'?

You're on the wrong side here.

It seems like we all are voicing displeasure in it, and I think the courts will succeed in not letting this happen. May take a while, though. As for sides, I'm against this "ban." If that's the wrong side, I guess you're a "teammate" of mine.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

I recently heard a podcast about this (was it on This American Life?) downright depressing. Those people have entrusted us with their lives only to get shafted.

Yeah, that's the one. Guam could hold everyone who is eligible for "extreme vetting" in a reasonable manner of time, but no one is willing to do it.

 

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

They're not in the country yet. The Constitution only applies to those already in the country.

Can you point out, specifically, where in this text where it limits the application to people in the country?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Be specific.

When I read that, it is not specific to anyone or anywhere.

 

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

It's interesting to see so many opportunities for Gun Owners who want to be so very constitutional for the 2nd Amendment stand up for the rest of the constitution.

I should point out- if you do NOT do that, don't expect ANY support what so ever for yours. If you want protection for your single amendment, and want others to follow your reasoning, then you MUST do it now. The law is a full system, not just one amendment.

Religion, poll taxes, free speech, payments from foreign countries, etc. Stand up for those, too. Other wise, **** off.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Well, I guess you don't understand what "respectfully" means.

What Trump is doing is horrible. The question is, as we are discussing (and Handy's response does a good job of expanding the various points), is it LEGAL? These are two separate issues. Just because one says "Yes, Trump can do that" does NOT mean one agrees with it.

Edit: To put it another way, if the Office Of The President is doing something legal, I'll defend their right to do it until the day I die. I don't care who is in office, I don't care what the act is (I may even think the act is the worst act in history), etc.

Unless I'm missing something, Brent, that statement contributes nothing to the conversation. It simply means that the President has whatever powers he has, nothing more. If that is the extent of your analysis, then you do not recognize the concept of "abuse of power." If your response to that is that you are only saying you will defend his "right" to take any legal act, without respect to the act itself, then you are still saying nothing other than "a President should have whatever powers that are given to him." What value does such a statement have?

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Unless I'm missing something, Brent, that statement contributes nothing to the conversation. It simply means that the President has whatever powers he has, nothing more. If that is the extent of your analysis, then you do not recognize the concept of "abuse of power." If your response to that is that you are only saying you will defend his "right" to take any legal act, without respect to the act itself, then you are still saying nothing other than "a President should have whatever powers that are given to him." What value does such a statement have?

It's part of the overall conversation. There are some saying that he shouldn't be able to do what he's doing because it's wrong (morally, or whatever word you want to use). However, they are confusing that with it actually being legal or illegal.

To use a different issue:

I think abortion is wrong and shouldn't happen in general.
I also know abortion is legal.
So, while I am personally against abortion, I will support anyone's right to get an abortion, because despite my personal feelings, it's a legal act.

 

[aparch]

our western federal lands are our nation's greatest treasure. This is just the start. Chaffetz has been pushing for a massive state take over of federal lands in Utah. This would eventually end with massive sell-offs to plug short term budget holes, and a huge increase in oil and mineral development, and a huge loss in outdoor recreational access (which is a multi billion dollar industry in Utah and employs more people than oil and mineral extraction)

These lands are our birthright as americans, and these ******* republicans can't wait to turn them over to oil companies.

I really hope either bill doesn't make it through the house. I would hope the other western representatives would shoot this down. He seems to have just pushed HR621 through on his own. HR622 has six co-sponsors (all republicans) that I have a hunch this stems from the Bundy "Camp Dildo" situation.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Edit: To put it another way, if the Office Of The President is doing something legal, I'll defend their right to do it until the day I die. I don't care who is in office, I don't care what the act is (I may even think the act is the worst act in history), etc.

Wait a minute, slavery used to be legal. Preventing people of one race from marrying another used to be legal. Segregating school children by the color of their skin used to be legal. We should defend what is just, not what is legal. Sometimes there's an overlap, but sometimes there clearly is not.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

It's interesting to see so many opportunities for Gun Owners who want to be so very constitutional for the 2nd Amendment stand up for the rest of the constitution.

I should point out- if you do NOT do that, don't expect ANY support what so ever for yours. If you want protection for your single amendment, and want others to follow your reasoning, then you MUST do it now. The law is a full system, not just one amendment.

Religion, poll taxes, free speech, payments from foreign countries, etc. Stand up for those, too. Other wise, **** off.

Along these same lines, why does the right seem to think government is absolutely incompetent in everything they do, except when it comes to law enforcement or the military? We can't trust them to run schools, drivers license offices or build roads, but the cops and the soldiers are always right and the best of the best of the best our country has to offer. Absolute hypocrisy and bull5h!t.

 

[unofan]

It seems like we all are voicing displeasure in it, and I think the courts will succeed in not letting this happen. May take a while, though. As for sides, I'm against this "ban." If that's the wrong side, I guess you're a "teammate" of mine.

So you're arguing that it's legal, but think the courts will shut it down?

How's that work?

 

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Along these same lines, why does the right seem to think government is absolutely incompetent in everything they do, except when it comes to law enforcement or the military? We can't trust them to run schools, drivers license offices or build roads, but the cops and the soldiers are always right and the best of the best of the best our country has to offer. Absolute hypocrisy and bull5h!t.

Lets be realistic- the support is just about jailing and killing people. They don't actually support veterans or cops- just look at the VA or the constant attack on retirement benefits.

the most we can do is have cops, firemen, and vets stand and get applause at events. Beyond that, nothing.

"thank you for your service. Need care? Thank you for your service. Homeless? Thank you for your service.." makes me sick.

these are the same people who want to make D's feel bad that Obama turned his back on cops when they were shot. But they don't feel bad when it comes to taking care of them.

Just like our budget is turning toward a wall and more defense, and away from welfare and healthcare. R's are more interested in killing people than taking care of them.

 

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Just like our budget is turning toward a wall and more defense, and away from welfare and healthcare. R's are more interested in killing people than taking care of them.

Duh. There's money to be made in government contracts for construction and defense. There's no money to be made in health care.

The Republican party is the modern day Amway. You too can get rich if you buy into our pyramid scheme!

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Lets be realistic- the support is just about jailing and killing people. They don't actually support veterans or cops- just look at the VA or the constant attack on retirement benefits.

the most we can do is have cops, firemen, and vets stand and get applause at events. Beyond that, nothing.

"thank you for your service. Need care? Thank you for your service. Homeless? Thank you for your service.." makes me sick.

these are the same people who want to make D's feel bad that Obama turned his back on cops when they were shot. But they don't feel bad when it comes to taking care of them.

Just like our budget is turning toward a wall and more defense, and away from welfare and healthcare. R's are more interested in killing people than taking care of them.

Cheap grace. Most of the right in this country have perfected the art of Cheap Grace.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Wait a minute, slavery used to be legal. Preventing people of one race from marrying another used to be legal. Segregating school children by the color of their skin used to be legal. We should defend what is just, not what is legal. Sometimes there's an overlap, but sometimes there clearly is not.

And as a nation, we worked to change those laws. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. Again, these are separate trains of thought.

And as for the courts, the way Trump is doing this currently, it's not legal. As I said, though, if worded in a certain way, it could be legal.