Although I disagree with the EO, I hate the political grandstanding of Sally Yates. You don't want to defend an EO for which a reasonable legal argument could be made (i.e. your job [hint: "not convinced of its legality" still means you could make a reasonable legal argument for it...])? Resign. This was clearly a political ploy. What's worse are the people calling her a hero for pulling a political stunt to set her up for political or private opportunities, especially when she was probably not going to have a job in about 24-48 hours anyways. Hero my ass.
Disagree. We can't have the two parties playing by different rules. The obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans over the last eight years should come back to bite them and I'm glad they are. Good for Sally Yates - about time the Dems stopped being pussies. Fuck Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court as well; that may never happen.
So your solution is to make politics more partisan, justifying Republican obstructionism? You do realize the Republicans can employ the nuclear option, get rid of filibusters on Supreme Court candidates, and force through any nomination they want? Do you really want that for the next 2-3 supreme court justices? What a lot of people on the left forget is that many people who voted for Clinton voted down ballot Republican. Even though Clinton won the presidential popular vote, The GOP for both the senate and house won the popular vote over Democrats.
and? I don't give a shit if they put into place the nuclear option. After all the shit they've pulled in week 1 along with how extreme his pick is likely going to be, they can enjoy that battle. and if they do it I prefer it going down without a fight. moderation isn't effective countering extremism.
Immoderation is not necessarily effective either. But most Republicans aren't "extreme" and many republicans and conservatives (especially the voters) don't like Trump and common cause could be found if the left wasn't so fucking insistent on ideological purity of controversial and complex subjects. For instance, opposing abortion is not an "irrational" position. To pretend like it is "anti-women" is on the face of it absurd. When a majority of the voters are voting republican for senate and house, even when their presidential candidate is Trump, perhaps the majority in this country do not endorse the progressive view of the world? I guess you could always take up arms. That would certainly not be moderate!
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.
Although I disagree with the EO, I hate the political grandstanding of Sally Yates. You don't want to defend an EO for which a reasonable legal argument could be made (i.e. your job [hint: "not convinced of its legality" still means you could make a reasonable legal argument for it...])? Resign. This was clearly a political ploy. What's worse are the people calling her a hero for pulling a political stunt to set her up for political or private opportunities, especially when she was probably not going to have a job in about 24-48 hours anyways. Hero my ass.
Disagree. We can't have the two parties playing by different rules. The obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans over the last eight years should come back to bite them and I'm glad they are. Good for Sally Yates - about time the Dems stopped being pussies. Fuck Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court as well; that may never happen.
So your solution is to make politics more partisan, justifying Republican obstructionism? You do realize the Republicans can employ the nuclear option, get rid of filibusters on Supreme Court candidates, and force through any nomination they want? Do you really want that for the next 2-3 supreme court justices? What a lot of people on the left forget is that many people who voted for Clinton voted down ballot Republican. Even though Clinton won the presidential popular vote, The GOP for both the senate and house won the popular vote over Democrats.
and? I don't give a shit if they put into place the nuclear option. After all the shit they've pulled in week 1 along with how extreme his pick is likely going to be, they can enjoy that battle. and if they do it I prefer it going down without a fight. moderation isn't effective countering extremism.
Immoderation is not necessarily effective either. But most Republicans aren't "extreme" and many republicans and conservatives (especially the voters) don't like Trump and common cause could be found if the left wasn't so fucking insistent on ideological purity of controversial and complex subjects. For instance, opposing abortion is not an "irrational" position. To pretend like it is "anti-women" is on the face of it absurd. When a majority of the voters are voting republican for senate and house, even when their presidential candidate is Trump, perhaps the majority in this country do not endorse the progressive view of the world? I guess you could always take up arms. That would certainly not be moderate!
while abortion is a split issue, the people are strongly in favor of gay rights, at least some level of drug legalization, and a background check for gun purchases. So I certainly disagree on the last part.
Ideological purity works both ways.
As for the use of the term "extreme," on the very issue we are discussing the republicans just went 9 months without even providing a hearing on a moderate scotus pick and some talked about continuing that policy through HRC's 4 years. So yes, I am going to call them extrme.
the problem the democrats have always had is they let the republicans dictate the conversation and then take it. they are a weak political party.
Although I disagree with the EO, I hate the political grandstanding of Sally Yates. You don't want to defend an EO for which a reasonable legal argument could be made (i.e. your job [hint: "not convinced of its legality" still means you could make a reasonable legal argument for it...])? Resign. This was clearly a political ploy. What's worse are the people calling her a hero for pulling a political stunt to set her up for political or private opportunities, especially when she was probably not going to have a job in about 24-48 hours anyways. Hero my ass.
Disagree. We can't have the two parties playing by different rules. The obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans over the last eight years should come back to bite them and I'm glad they are. Good for Sally Yates - about time the Dems stopped being pussies. Fuck Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court as well; that may never happen.
So your solution is to make politics more partisan, justifying Republican obstructionism? You do realize the Republicans can employ the nuclear option, get rid of filibusters on Supreme Court candidates, and force through any nomination they want? Do you really want that for the next 2-3 supreme court justices? What a lot of people on the left forget is that many people who voted for Clinton voted down ballot Republican. Even though Clinton won the presidential popular vote, The GOP for both the senate and house won the popular vote over Democrats.
and? I don't give a shit if they put into place the nuclear option. After all the shit they've pulled in week 1 along with how extreme his pick is likely going to be, they can enjoy that battle. and if they do it I prefer it going down without a fight. moderation isn't effective countering extremism.
Immoderation is not necessarily effective either. But most Republicans aren't "extreme" and many republicans and conservatives (especially the voters) don't like Trump and common cause could be found if the left wasn't so fucking insistent on ideological purity of controversial and complex subjects. For instance, opposing abortion is not an "irrational" position. To pretend like it is "anti-women" is on the face of it absurd. When a majority of the voters are voting republican for senate and house, even when their presidential candidate is Trump, perhaps the majority in this country do not endorse the progressive view of the world? I guess you could always take up arms. That would certainly not be moderate!
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.
Translation: I'm a fucktard and can't formulate an argument to refute it.
Although I disagree with the EO, I hate the political grandstanding of Sally Yates. You don't want to defend an EO for which a reasonable legal argument could be made (i.e. your job [hint: "not convinced of its legality" still means you could make a reasonable legal argument for it...])? Resign. This was clearly a political ploy. What's worse are the people calling her a hero for pulling a political stunt to set her up for political or private opportunities, especially when she was probably not going to have a job in about 24-48 hours anyways. Hero my ass.
Disagree. We can't have the two parties playing by different rules. The obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans over the last eight years should come back to bite them and I'm glad they are. Good for Sally Yates - about time the Dems stopped being pussies. Fuck Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court as well; that may never happen.
So your solution is to make politics more partisan, justifying Republican obstructionism? You do realize the Republicans can employ the nuclear option, get rid of filibusters on Supreme Court candidates, and force through any nomination they want? Do you really want that for the next 2-3 supreme court justices? What a lot of people on the left forget is that many people who voted for Clinton voted down ballot Republican. Even though Clinton won the presidential popular vote, The GOP for both the senate and house won the popular vote over Democrats.
and? I don't give a shit if they put into place the nuclear option. After all the shit they've pulled in week 1 along with how extreme his pick is likely going to be, they can enjoy that battle. and if they do it I prefer it going down without a fight. moderation isn't effective countering extremism.
Immoderation is not necessarily effective either. But most Republicans aren't "extreme" and many republicans and conservatives (especially the voters) don't like Trump and common cause could be found if the left wasn't so fucking insistent on ideological purity of controversial and complex subjects. For instance, opposing abortion is not an "irrational" position. To pretend like it is "anti-women" is on the face of it absurd. When a majority of the voters are voting republican for senate and house, even when their presidential candidate is Trump, perhaps the majority in this country do not endorse the progressive view of the world? I guess you could always take up arms. That would certainly not be moderate!
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.
Translation: I'm a fucktard and can't formulate an argument to refute it.
Although I disagree with the EO, I hate the political grandstanding of Sally Yates. You don't want to defend an EO for which a reasonable legal argument could be made (i.e. your job [hint: "not convinced of its legality" still means you could make a reasonable legal argument for it...])? Resign. This was clearly a political ploy. What's worse are the people calling her a hero for pulling a political stunt to set her up for political or private opportunities, especially when she was probably not going to have a job in about 24-48 hours anyways. Hero my ass.
Disagree. We can't have the two parties playing by different rules. The obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans over the last eight years should come back to bite them and I'm glad they are. Good for Sally Yates - about time the Dems stopped being pussies. Fuck Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court as well; that may never happen.
So your solution is to make politics more partisan, justifying Republican obstructionism? You do realize the Republicans can employ the nuclear option, get rid of filibusters on Supreme Court candidates, and force through any nomination they want? Do you really want that for the next 2-3 supreme court justices? What a lot of people on the left forget is that many people who voted for Clinton voted down ballot Republican. Even though Clinton won the presidential popular vote, The GOP for both the senate and house won the popular vote over Democrats.
and? I don't give a shit if they put into place the nuclear option. After all the shit they've pulled in week 1 along with how extreme his pick is likely going to be, they can enjoy that battle. and if they do it I prefer it going down without a fight. moderation isn't effective countering extremism.
Immoderation is not necessarily effective either. But most Republicans aren't "extreme" and many republicans and conservatives (especially the voters) don't like Trump and common cause could be found if the left wasn't so fucking insistent on ideological purity of controversial and complex subjects. For instance, opposing abortion is not an "irrational" position. To pretend like it is "anti-women" is on the face of it absurd. When a majority of the voters are voting republican for senate and house, even when their presidential candidate is Trump, perhaps the majority in this country do not endorse the progressive view of the world? I guess you could always take up arms. That would certainly not be moderate!
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.
Translation: I'm a fucktard and can't formulate an argument to refute it.
The nut job Left is classic. They spend the weekend freaking out and then polls come out supporting the policy almost 2-1. They spent the first week screaming their lungs out about every little move Trump does, and from that they finally have a legitimate bitch about how the policy was actually rolled out and it gets drown out by all of the other hysteria they are trying to generate.
“American voters support 48 – 42 percent suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” states a press release from Quinnipiac University, which questioned 899 people by calling their landline and cell phones in early January.
And your poll is Rasmussen (the only poll showing over 50% approval) and the last calls were January 26. Don't you think the last 3 days of vetting the order changes things?
Do you ever feel like you've been duped by your news source?
The nut job Left is classic. They spend the weekend freaking out and then polls come out supporting the policy almost 2-1. They spent the first week screaming their lungs out about every little move Trump does, and from that they finally have a legitimate bitch about how the policy was actually rolled out and it gets drown out by all of the other hysteria they are trying to generate.
“American voters support 48 – 42 percent suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” states a press release from Quinnipiac University, which questioned 899 people by calling their landline and cell phones in early January.
And your poll is Rasmussen (the only poll showing over 50% approval) and the last calls were January 26. Don't you think the last 3 days of vetting the order changes things?
Do you ever feel like you've been duped by your news source?
Your response is to cite a different poll that agrees with me in direction if not the almost 2-1 ratio and think that proves your point? God you are a fucking moron.
Add to that a poll that doesn't publish (that I could find) it's underlying assumptions and was notorious about being pro-Hillary (go look at their final polls for states like Penn, Mich, etc)...if it makes you feel better I'm sure the WP will come out with some push polls to try and swing opinion like they did with Obama's final "approval", but only a few as dumb enough as you will believe them. And yes, you are a big enough moron to think inconveniencing average travelers at the airport and screaming on CNN and MSNBC who have a couple million people in total watching, 99% of which have already made up their mind is suddenly going to change millions of minds about a temporary ban on people coming in from 7 war-torn countries, 5 of which Obama was actively bombing.
God I hate typing on an iPad.
Holy shit you missed the point. Which was there no poll yet that covered the executive order. Only ones before the the order and the day it was issued where people agree with the premise. Don't you think how the order was written should be taken into account?
You are a fucking simpleton that'll believe anything without digging into it as long as it confirms your bias.
The nut job Left is classic. They spend the weekend freaking out and then polls come out supporting the policy almost 2-1. They spent the first week screaming their lungs out about every little move Trump does, and from that they finally have a legitimate bitch about how the policy was actually rolled out and it gets drown out by all of the other hysteria they are trying to generate.
“American voters support 48 – 42 percent suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” states a press release from Quinnipiac University, which questioned 899 people by calling their landline and cell phones in early January.
And your poll is Rasmussen (the only poll showing over 50% approval) and the last calls were January 26. Don't you think the last 3 days of vetting the order changes things?
Do you ever feel like you've been duped by your news source?
The nut job Left is classic. They spend the weekend freaking out and then polls come out supporting the policy almost 2-1. They spent the first week screaming their lungs out about every little move Trump does, and from that they finally have a legitimate bitch about how the policy was actually rolled out and it gets drown out by all of the other hysteria they are trying to generate.
“American voters support 48 – 42 percent suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” states a press release from Quinnipiac University, which questioned 899 people by calling their landline and cell phones in early January.
And your poll is Rasmussen (the only poll showing over 50% approval) and the last calls were January 26. Don't you think the last 3 days of vetting the order changes things?
Do you ever feel like you've been duped by your news source?
Your response is to cite a different poll that agrees with me in direction if not the almost 2-1 ratio and think that proves your point? God you are a fucking moron.
Add to that a poll that doesn't publish (that I could find) it's underlying assumptions and was notorious about being pro-Hillary (go look at their final polls for states like Penn, Mich, etc)...if it makes you feel better I'm sure the WP will come out with some push polls to try and swing opinion like they did with Obama's final "approval", but only a few as dumb enough as you will believe them. And yes, you are a big enough moron to think inconveniencing average travelers at the airport and screaming on CNN and MSNBC who have a couple million people in total watching, 99% of which have already made up their mind is suddenly going to change millions of minds about a temporary ban on people coming in from 7 war-torn countries, 5 of which Obama was actively bombing.
God I hate typing on an iPad.
Holy shit you missed the point. Which was there no poll yet that covered the executive order. Only ones before the the order and the day it was issued where people agree with the premise. Don't you think how the order was written should be taken into account?
You are a fucking simpleton that'll believe anything without digging into it as long as it confirms your bias.
Thank you for again pointing out the fact you cannot understand the difference between the policy and how it was rolled out...further proving my point. Man you are a special kind of stupid.
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
Although I disagree with the EO, I hate the political grandstanding of Sally Yates. You don't want to defend an EO for which a reasonable legal argument could be made (i.e. your job [hint: "not convinced of its legality" still means you could make a reasonable legal argument for it...])? Resign. This was clearly a political ploy. What's worse are the people calling her a hero for pulling a political stunt to set her up for political or private opportunities, especially when she was probably not going to have a job in about 24-48 hours anyways. Hero my ass.
Disagree. We can't have the two parties playing by different rules. The obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans over the last eight years should come back to bite them and I'm glad they are. Good for Sally Yates - about time the Dems stopped being pussies. Fuck Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court as well; that may never happen.
So your solution is to make politics more partisan, justifying Republican obstructionism? You do realize the Republicans can employ the nuclear option, get rid of filibusters on Supreme Court candidates, and force through any nomination they want? Do you really want that for the next 2-3 supreme court justices? What a lot of people on the left forget is that many people who voted for Clinton voted down ballot Republican. Even though Clinton won the presidential popular vote, The GOP for both the senate and house won the popular vote over Democrats.
and? I don't give a shit if they put into place the nuclear option. After all the shit they've pulled in week 1 along with how extreme his pick is likely going to be, they can enjoy that battle. and if they do it I prefer it going down without a fight. moderation isn't effective countering extremism.
Immoderation is not necessarily effective either. But most Republicans aren't "extreme" and many republicans and conservatives (especially the voters) don't like Trump and common cause could be found if the left wasn't so fucking insistent on ideological purity of controversial and complex subjects. For instance, opposing abortion is not an "irrational" position. To pretend like it is "anti-women" is on the face of it absurd. When a majority of the voters are voting republican for senate and house, even when their presidential candidate is Trump, perhaps the majority in this country do not endorse the progressive view of the world? I guess you could always take up arms. That would certainly not be moderate!
while abortion is a split issue, the people are strongly in favor of gay rights, at least some level of drug legalization, and a background check for gun purchases. So I certainly disagree on the last part.
Ideological purity works both ways.
As for the use of the term "extreme," on the very issue we are discussing the republicans just went 9 months without even providing a hearing on a moderate scotus pick and some talked about continuing that policy through HRC's 4 years. So yes, I am going to call them extrme.
the problem the democrats have always had is they let the republicans dictate the conversation and then take it. they are a weak political party.
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
They review all executive orders:
https://www.justice.gov/olc All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.
The nut job Left is classic. They spend the weekend freaking out and then polls come out supporting the policy almost 2-1. They spent the first week screaming their lungs out about every little move Trump does, and from that they finally have a legitimate bitch about how the policy was actually rolled out and it gets drown out by all of the other hysteria they are trying to generate.
“American voters support 48 – 42 percent suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” states a press release from Quinnipiac University, which questioned 899 people by calling their landline and cell phones in early January.
And your poll is Rasmussen (the only poll showing over 50% approval) and the last calls were January 26. Don't you think the last 3 days of vetting the order changes things?
Do you ever feel like you've been duped by your news source?
The nut job Left is classic. They spend the weekend freaking out and then polls come out supporting the policy almost 2-1. They spent the first week screaming their lungs out about every little move Trump does, and from that they finally have a legitimate bitch about how the policy was actually rolled out and it gets drown out by all of the other hysteria they are trying to generate.
“American voters support 48 – 42 percent suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” states a press release from Quinnipiac University, which questioned 899 people by calling their landline and cell phones in early January.
And your poll is Rasmussen (the only poll showing over 50% approval) and the last calls were January 26. Don't you think the last 3 days of vetting the order changes things?
Do you ever feel like you've been duped by your news source?
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
They review all executive orders:
https://www.justice.gov/olc All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.
Not saying they did. But given the way it was rolled out it would not shock me if they bypassed that step
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
They review all executive orders:
https://www.justice.gov/olc All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
They review all executive orders:
https://www.justice.gov/olc All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.
Not saying they did. But given the way it was rolled out it would not shock me if they bypassed that step
Would be funnier for Salley Yates if her own department hadn't reviewed the executive orders before they went out and ok'd them.
Whoops....
Are you implying she got to read the order?
The office of Legal Counsel reviewed it and signed off on it as being completely legal (as is there role in the Executive Branch)...you somehow saying they aren't under her umbrella? Or are you saying they are and she's just shitty at her job and doesn't know what's going on under her?
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
They review all executive orders:
https://www.justice.gov/olc All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.
Not saying they did. But given the way it was rolled out it would not shock me if they bypassed that step
Comments
Ideological purity works both ways.
As for the use of the term "extreme," on the very issue we are discussing the republicans just went 9 months without even providing a hearing on a moderate scotus pick and some talked about continuing that policy through HRC's 4 years. So yes, I am going to call them extrme.
the problem the democrats have always had is they let the republicans dictate the conversation and then take it. they are a weak political party.
See, everything in Canada is backwards.
I know. . . WTF. . .
Fuck off
You are a fucking simpleton that'll believe anything without digging into it as long as it confirms your bias.
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
It's fucking written like he talks - a Brooklyn smart ass. The only thing missing is some use of the word "Huge".
https://www.justice.gov/olc
All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.
CHRIST