Trump isn't Hitler
Comments
-
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.Hippopeteamus said:
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!dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.AlCzervik said:
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.Hippopeteamus said: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.
-
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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!dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.AlCzervik said:
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.Hippopeteamus said: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.
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. -
Translation: I'm a fucktard and can't formulate an argument to refute it.AlCzervik said:
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.Hippopeteamus said:
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!dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.AlCzervik said:
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.Hippopeteamus said: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.
-
Your troll game is so weak.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Translation: I'm a fucktard and can't formulate an argument to refute it.AlCzervik said:
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.Hippopeteamus said:
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!dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.AlCzervik said:
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.Hippopeteamus said: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.
-
I'm not trolling you, simply stating a fact. HTH.AlCzervik said:
Your troll game is so weak.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Translation: I'm a fucktard and can't formulate an argument to refute it.AlCzervik said:
This is one of the worst attempts at an argument I have ever read.Hippopeteamus said:
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!dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.AlCzervik said:
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.Hippopeteamus said: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.
-
Those were "hate crimes."TierbsHsotBoobs said:
As technically limited as you are as a writer, you would be a big improvement over the White House idiots.DerekJohnson said:I remember someone speculated if a sixth grader wrote Bow Down to Willingham. So much hysteria.
By the way, your silence about the terrorism in Quebec still speaks volumes.
http://forum.hardcorehusky.com/discussion/37067/unofficial-quebec-city-terror-attack-thread
See, everything in Canada is backwards.
I know. . . WTF. . .
Fuck off -
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?HoustonHusky said:2001400ex said:
“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.HoustonHusky said:
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens2001400ex said:
Komo4HoustonHusky said: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.
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?amp=1?client=ms-android-verizon
However, you read fox news and it pretends this poll was after the executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53966?client=ms-android-verizon
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.2001400ex said:
“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.HoustonHusky said:
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens2001400ex said:
Komo4HoustonHusky said: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.
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?amp=1?client=ms-android-verizon
However, you read fox news and it pretends this poll was after the executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53966?client=ms-android-verizon
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?
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.
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.2001400ex said:
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?HoustonHusky said:2001400ex said:
“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.HoustonHusky said:
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens2001400ex said:
Komo4HoustonHusky said: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.
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?amp=1?client=ms-android-verizon
However, you read fox news and it pretends this poll was after the executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53966?client=ms-android-verizon
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.2001400ex said:
“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.HoustonHusky said:
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens2001400ex said:
Komo4HoustonHusky said: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.
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?amp=1?client=ms-android-verizon
However, you read fox news and it pretends this poll was after the executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53966?client=ms-android-verizon
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?
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.
You are a fucking simpleton that'll believe anything without digging into it as long as it confirms your bias. -
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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.... -
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.HoustonHusky said:
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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....
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet. -
Race Bannon is the Chief of Staff..or something
-
that's actually true. the content is one thing - believe what you will there - but it's fucking press release, from the White House no less.
It's fucking written like he talks - a Brooklyn smart ass. The only thing missing is some use of the word "Huge". -
I see you get your news from Hillary's campaign.dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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!dhdawg said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.AlCzervik said:
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.Hippopeteamus said: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.
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. -
They review all executive orders:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.HoustonHusky said:
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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....
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
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. -
Poor lil snowflake. Ts and Ps.HoustonHusky said:2001400ex said:
“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.HoustonHusky said:
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens2001400ex said:
Komo4HoustonHusky said: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.
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?amp=1?client=ms-android-verizon
However, you read fox news and it pretends this poll was after the executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53966?client=ms-android-verizon
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?2001400ex said:
“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.HoustonHusky said:
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens2001400ex said:
Komo4HoustonHusky said: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.
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?amp=1?client=ms-android-verizon
However, you read fox news and it pretends this poll was after the executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53966?client=ms-android-verizon
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?
God I hate typing on an iPad. -
Not saying they did. But given the way it was rolled out it would not shock me if they bypassed that stepHoustonHusky said:
They review all executive orders:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.HoustonHusky said:
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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....
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
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. -
Now you're implying Trump follows the rules.HoustonHusky said:
They review all executive orders:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.HoustonHusky said:
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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....
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
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 -
Being selective in what info you believe is fundhdawg said:
Not saying they did. But given the way it was rolled out it would not shock me if they bypassed that stepHoustonHusky said:
They review all executive orders:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.HoustonHusky said:
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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....
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
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. -
I appreciate your honesty.CuntWaffle said:
Being selective in what info you believe is fundhdawg said:
Not saying they did. But given the way it was rolled out it would not shock me if they bypassed that stepHoustonHusky said:
They review all executive orders:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's a valid point. To be fair, she was the AG for 10 whole days before getting fired.HoustonHusky said:
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?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Are you implying she got to read the order?HoustonHusky said: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....
By the way, did the OLC actually review and approve the order? I haven't seen independent confirmation of that yet.
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. -
Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
-
He didn't ban all Iraqis from traveling here.Sledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
Come with facts next time. -
Please tell me you recognize the difference. Or you just enjoy spouting lame conservative talking points.Sledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
-
1. he didn'tSledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
2. hard to criticize a president from his left when idiots like you are constantly berating him for being too "weak" and soft on immigration.
-
Oxy is a helluva drug:Sledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
mediaite.com/online/bill-maher-calls-trump-voters-fcking-drug-addicts-by-highlighting-opioid-use-in-red-states/
Pulling for ya buddy. -
I've taken OXY. You only get that delusional when combined with alcohol or chopped up.AlCzervik said:
Oxy is a helluva drug:Sledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
mediaite.com/online/bill-maher-calls-trump-voters-fcking-drug-addicts-by-highlighting-opioid-use-in-red-states/
Pulling for ya buddy. -
That's like asking the sun to rise in the westTierbsHsotBoobs said:
He didn't ban all Iraqis from traveling here.Sledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
Come with facts next time. -
Her career at Justice is over. We wish her well in her next career as ambulance chaser.BennyBeaver said:
I'm sure she'll be fine and this won't shorten her career. Probably helps.Dude61 said:Trumps EO is consistent with the Constitution and Federal Regs. Insubordination is a sure way to shorten your career.
-
Dude61 said:
Her career at Justice is over. We wish her well in her next career as ambulance chaser.BennyBeaver said:
I'm sure she'll be fine and this won't shorten her career. Probably helps.Dude61 said:Trumps EO is consistent with the Constitution and Federal Regs. Insubordination is a sure way to shorten your career.
-
she can probably run for an elected AG in a blue state and win on this alone.Dude61 said:
Her career at Justice is over. We wish her well in her next career as ambulance chaser.BennyBeaver said:
I'm sure she'll be fine and this won't shorten her career. Probably helps.Dude61 said:Trumps EO is consistent with the Constitution and Federal Regs. Insubordination is a sure way to shorten your career.
-
1 country or 7 who cares.2001400ex said:
Please tell me you recognize the difference. Or you just enjoy spouting lame conservative talking points.Sledog said:Where were all you snowflakes when your hero Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi's traveling here for 6 months? Were you outraged?
We have banned Jewish refugees in WWII, chinese, anarchists, Iranians and HIV positive people like Hondo, AL, Sven and Dflea.
