The Official President Trump Thread
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I think there's a few of us who can meet that criteria- you might want to try adding a little under water basket weaving to the mix, just to break any ties!
Probably a damn good author, but what credentials does he have for critiquing Presidents? He might find old Trump has a couple of words up his sleeve he hasn't used yet! I found out many years ago that it is very dangerous to under rate someone's intelligence.
By those criteria, nobody should criticize any politician. Unfortunately, we have to put up with people criticizing Trudeau on a daily basis. We put up with 8 years of criticizing Obama., but suddenly, nobody is supposed to criticize the most unqualified, most narcissistic, self aggrandizing nincompoop of all time. I don't think that will happen. The man (and I say that with much trepidation) has supplied us with infinite ammunition to lampoon him. I, for one, am having one hell of a good time at his expense.
Trump won't immediately appeal travel ban halt to Supreme Court
The Trump administration will not immediately appeal the decision blocking its travel ban to the Supreme Court, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.
The decision to not go to the Supreme Court comes as the White House is examining several options to save President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration.
"We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order," Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One Friday evening.
Asked if his plan might be to issue a new executive order, POTUS said: "It very well could be. We need speed for reasons of security, so it very well could be."
In the aftermath of a federal appellate court's decisive blow to Trump's move to ban citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, the White House is working on "possible tweaks" to the executive order, according to a source in close contact with the White House on national security issues.
Should it write a new order, it would be more narrowly tailored than the one issued two weeks ago, the source said, such as explicitly stating that it does not apply to legal permanent residents.
"We are reviewing all of our options in the court system and confident we will prevail on the merits of the case," an administration official told CNN.
Questions on next steps have swirled since Thursday evening when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift of temporary restraining order on Trump's executive order barring foreign nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and all refugees from Syria indefinitely.
"We are going to do whatever is necessary to keep our country safe," Trump said earlier Friday during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "We'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. You'll be seeing that sometime next week."
The source cautions that the administration believes a new order risks making the current lawsuit "moot," which it may not want to do because it believes it can ultimately win on the merits.
The Justice Department has a variety of options for how to proceed next in court, and Trump insists his administration will ultimately be successful.
"In addition we will continue to go through the court process, and ultimately I have no doubt we'll win that particular case," Trump said Friday.
The Justice Department might still try to persuade a larger panel of judges on the 9th Circuit to grant its emergency motion to "stay" (i.e., stop) US District Court Judge James Robart's temporary restraining order suspending key provisions of the travel ban.
DOJ could also dismiss its appeal of the temporary restraining order altogether and continue litigating the merits of the case in front of Robart in an attempt to bolster its case. Additionally, some legal experts believe it may be advantageous for the administration to just write a new executive order to avoid the possibility of the President being subpoenaed over conversations regarding a "Muslim ban."
An official tells CNN that administration officials were not happy with the DOJ lawyer's performance during the oral arguments before the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit and thought he was not as prepared as he should have been for the arguments against Washington and Minnesota, the states that challenged Trump's executive order.
The source said it's clear the judges asked more about merits than the government lawyer anticipated, and he stumbled on simple arguments concerning the states' standing, or ability to challenge, the order.
On Friday, Robart said he would like to hear from the government on next steps in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
Robart has ordered the Justice Department and the states to submit a joint status report by 3 a.m. ET Monday that sets forth a plan moving forward while the appeal is pending the Ninth Circuit. The court will then hold a conference call with the parties at 2 p.m. ET Monday.
9th Circuit may hear case en banc
On Friday, one judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made a request that a vote be taken by the full court to consider whether to rehear the decision made by the three-judge panel on Thursday.
The court requested briefs on the issue by February 16. The vote is likely to occur after the briefs are filed.
This might put the administration in an awkward position. It simultaneously has to file briefs and decide how it wants to handle the existing executive order.
It is unclear if a majority of the 25 active judges on the bench will agree to hear the case.
Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee, issued the request.
The Justice Department said in a statement it is "considering its options" in response to Thomas' request.
Trump won't immediately appeal travel ban halt to Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Evidently, he wants to stack the court with more right wingers who will kiss up to him and do all his bidding.
The Trump administration will not immediately appeal the decision blocking its travel ban to the Supreme Court, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.
The decision to not go to the Supreme Court comes as the White House is examining several options to save President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration.
"We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order," Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One Friday evening.
Asked if his plan might be to issue a new executive order, POTUS said: "It very well could be. We need speed for reasons of security, so it very well could be."
In the aftermath of a federal appellate court's decisive blow to Trump's move to ban citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, the White House is working on "possible tweaks" to the executive order, according to a source in close contact with the White House on national security issues.
Should it write a new order, it would be more narrowly tailored than the one issued two weeks ago, the source said, such as explicitly stating that it does not apply to legal permanent residents.
"We are reviewing all of our options in the court system and confident we will prevail on the merits of the case," an administration official told CNN.
Questions on next steps have swirled since Thursday evening when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift of temporary restraining order on Trump's executive order barring foreign nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and all refugees from Syria indefinitely.
"We are going to do whatever is necessary to keep our country safe," Trump said earlier Friday during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "We'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. You'll be seeing that sometime next week."
The source cautions that the administration believes a new order risks making the current lawsuit "moot," which it may not want to do because it believes it can ultimately win on the merits.
The Justice Department has a variety of options for how to proceed next in court, and Trump insists his administration will ultimately be successful.
"In addition we will continue to go through the court process, and ultimately I have no doubt we'll win that particular case," Trump said Friday.
The Justice Department might still try to persuade a larger panel of judges on the 9th Circuit to grant its emergency motion to "stay" (i.e., stop) US District Court Judge James Robart's temporary restraining order suspending key provisions of the travel ban.
DOJ could also dismiss its appeal of the temporary restraining order altogether and continue litigating the merits of the case in front of Robart in an attempt to bolster its case. Additionally, some legal experts believe it may be advantageous for the administration to just write a new executive order to avoid the possibility of the President being subpoenaed over conversations regarding a "Muslim ban."
An official tells CNN that administration officials were not happy with the DOJ lawyer's performance during the oral arguments before the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit and thought he was not as prepared as he should have been for the arguments against Washington and Minnesota, the states that challenged Trump's executive order.
The source said it's clear the judges asked more about merits than the government lawyer anticipated, and he stumbled on simple arguments concerning the states' standing, or ability to challenge, the order.
On Friday, Robart said he would like to hear from the government on next steps in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
Robart has ordered the Justice Department and the states to submit a joint status report by 3 a.m. ET Monday that sets forth a plan moving forward while the appeal is pending the Ninth Circuit. The court will then hold a conference call with the parties at 2 p.m. ET Monday.
9th Circuit may hear case en banc
On Friday, one judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made a request that a vote be taken by the full court to consider whether to rehear the decision made by the three-judge panel on Thursday.
The court requested briefs on the issue by February 16. The vote is likely to occur after the briefs are filed.
This might put the administration in an awkward position. It simultaneously has to file briefs and decide how it wants to handle the existing executive order.
It is unclear if a majority of the 25 active judges on the bench will agree to hear the case.
Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee, issued the request.
The Justice Department said in a statement it is "considering its options" in response to Thomas' request.
Trump won't immediately appeal travel ban halt to Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Evidently, he wants to stack the court with more right wingers who will kiss up to him and do all his bidding.
But what are you going to do when it turns out he's a lot brighter than you thought? A guy doesn't have 23,000 content employees by being stupid! I hope when Justin meets up with him on Monday, he can absorb some of Trump's wisdom & put it to good use up here.
McCarran-Walter Act
Trump Stands Solidly On Law To Ban Terrorists
In 1952, Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act that gives a sitting President the authority to restrict immigration into the United States and removal of anyone determined to be engaged in subversive activities. Carter used it and Obama used it.
With the terror attacks within our country in the past year, Trump needs to use it and expand it to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Ethiopia and more. Those countries prove hotbeds for Muslim terrorists training for their jihad against America. Immigration via the refugee program remains their ticket to killing our citizens.
Obama revised one of his Executive Orders to kick Russian ‘diplomats’ out of the United States. McCarran-Walter, co-authors of this act were both Democrats. Harry Truman, also a Democrat, vetoed it but the Congress overrode his veto. Truman was a Democrat but also a ‘Progressive’ in the same vein as today’s Progressives.
“In fact, Presidents Truman and Teddy Roosevelt were considered founders of the Progressive movement,” said George Phelps, former U.S. Army officer. “Obama’s E.O. 13694 authorized the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities determined to be responsible for or complicit in malicious cyber-enabled activities that result in enumerated harms that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States.”
According to the law, President Trump maintains complete authority to restrict entry of immigrants from designated countries based on the McCarran—Walter Act and Obama used an Executive Order to do the same thing when he had the Russian diplomats removed from the US.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82*414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), also known as the McCarran*Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952. Before this Act, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text.
H.R. 5678 was named after its sponsors, Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania).
President Harry Truman, a Democrat, vetoed the Act because he regarded the bill as "un-American" and discriminatory. Truman's veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.
- See more at: McCarran-WalterAct: Trump Stands Solidly On Law To Ban Terrorists
Trump Stands Solidly On Law To Ban Terrorists
In 1952, Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act that gives a sitting President the authority to restrict immigration into the United States and removal of anyone determined to be engaged in subversive activities. Carter used it and Obama used it.
With the terror attacks within our country in the past year, Trump needs to use it and expand it to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Ethiopia and more. Those countries prove hotbeds for Muslim terrorists training for their jihad against America. Immigration via the refugee program remains their ticket to killing our citizens.
Obama revised one of his Executive Orders to kick Russian ‘diplomats’ out of the United States. McCarran-Walter, co-authors of this act were both Democrats. Harry Truman, also a Democrat, vetoed it but the Congress overrode his veto. Truman was a Democrat but also a ‘Progressive’ in the same vein as today’s Progressives.
“In fact, Presidents Truman and Teddy Roosevelt were considered founders of the Progressive movement,” said George Phelps, former U.S. Army officer. “Obama’s E.O. 13694 authorized the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities determined to be responsible for or complicit in malicious cyber-enabled activities that result in enumerated harms that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States.”
According to the law, President Trump maintains complete authority to restrict entry of immigrants from designated countries based on the McCarran—Walter Act and Obama used an Executive Order to do the same thing when he had the Russian diplomats removed from the US.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82*414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), also known as the McCarran*Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952. Before this Act, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text.
H.R. 5678 was named after its sponsors, Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania).
President Harry Truman, a Democrat, vetoed the Act because he regarded the bill as "un-American" and discriminatory. Truman's veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.
- See more at: McCarran-WalterAct: Trump Stands Solidly On Law To Ban Terrorists
The poor fellow. At least he took time to deal with this awful situation.
With all those terrrerrrissssts flooding the borders he shouldn't have a moment to spare.
The poor fellow. At least he took time to deal with this awful situation.
With all those terrrerrrissssts flooding the borders he shouldn't have a moment to spare.
Why do the Trumpeters even care about Ivanka's fashion line? They buy their clothes at Goodwill and Cabela's.
How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency | New York Post
The I, ME mongrel ex-prez can't let it go man.
The I, ME mongrel ex-prez can't let it go man.
He's very delicate, our Donald. That's why they marked him 4F when he was drafted during Vietnam.
Very delicate.
Apply?? After a certain age you don't get hired by anybody, even if you try and contract yourself out. Best get an interesting hobby if broadband isn't enough to keep you entertained.
I'm sixty, still working and I make goddam sure that I'm still good at what I too because have no interest in stopping, right now. If I somehow lost my job, it would be very difficult to get another decent one ... not totally impossible, though. Expertise is still worthwhile if it can be directly translated into profits. Paper shufflers haven't a hope.