Liberal Forum

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 8:15 pm » wrote: You have a problem with me being dishonest, but not the guy running the country? LOL
I honestly don't care what it's called.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 12:18 pm » wrote: I don't deny it. You are missing the point. You are taking a comment that was referencing three (the other hundreds have not been proven) and applying it as blanket support for torture in general. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 12:18 pm » wrote: Next, I don't consider waterboarding torture. We treat our own soldiers worse in training.

Termin8tor » 30 Jan 2017 12:18 pm » wrote:
Where's a source for this, other than the usual voices in your head, psycho?

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 8:15 pm » wrote: You have a problem with me being dishonest, but not the guy running the country? LOL
I honestly don't care what it's called.

45 surrounds himself with people who call Islam a 'cancer' and people calling for a war between Christianity and Islam and you have an issue with what I call his plan?
Seriously?

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 5:09 pm » wrote:
You are incorrect. There are 7 countries that Obama designated as trouble spots. Trump didn't name them in the EO. He referred to the Obama list. There are 50 majority MUSLIM countries in the world. So not a ban on muslims. You now have the truth, so that means you are intentionally being DISHONEST.

Next, Obama walked back the ban on muslims comments almost immediately upon saying it. So you now have the truth on that. So on this you are being DISHONEST, intentionally.

Trump is not making this seem like a religious war. Not by SUSPENDING travel from 7 countries, the MSM and their minions repeating this are playing right into their hands. Yes, you are.

You know better. And that is why people get pissed at you, do you do it on purpose to increase post count?

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 11:59 am » wrote:No, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter didn't do the same thing as Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

Supporters of the President's unprecedented Muslim ban are screaming hypocrisy.
But there are some important differences with what previous Presidents have done.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 3:23 pm » wrote: Personally I don't give a **** what it's called.
45 talked about instituting a Muslim ban during the campaign so that's what people call it.
Besides, it's easier to say Muslim ban than it is 'a 90-day freeze on travel by citizens of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.'

Top Muslim countries in the world
10 Morocco. Most of the Moroccan population, about 34 million people, is Muslim. ...
9 Algeria. Algeria started to embrace Islam as the major religion in the 670s. ...
8 Turkey. ...
7 Nigeria. ...
6 Iran. ...
5 Egypt. ...
4 Bangladesh. ...
3 India.
2 Pakistan
1) Indonesia

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 3:46 pm » wrote: I will admit no such thing.
I have a bad memory, but I remember all the things he said about Muslims during the campaign.
He chose a National Security Adviser who describes Islam as a cancer.

The ban effects majority Muslim countries and 45 even said that we should make special allowances for Christians.
He's playing right into the terrorist's hands by making this seem like a religious war.
That is music to their ears.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 3:59 pm » wrote: I would bet good money that 45 never shed a tear in his whole life, except maybe that day when he ran out of hairspray.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 3:59 pm » wrote:We're told we're supposed to respect the office if not the man, but does 45 respect the dignity of the office?
I would bet good money that 45 never shed a tear in his whole life, except maybe that day when he ran out of hairspray.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 4:34 pm » wrote:“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.
Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too.
I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals.
He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

"You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no.

You think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?" Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked Yates.

“A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying ‘well, he appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views, what’s wrong with that?' ” Sessions asked.

“But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?”

Yates responded: "Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... on-duty-to

“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.

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

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

Misty » 31 Jan 2017 10:00 am » wrote:Jeff Sessions to Sally Yates two years ago at her Senate confirmation hearing for deputy Attorney General.
Will Sessions be able to say no to 45?
I have very strong doubts.
And it is clear that 45 does not respect the independence of the DOJ.

45's statement after firing Yates reads in part:
She betrayed the DOJ?
She is weak on borders and very weak on illegal Immigration?
Then why did they ask her to stay on?

“But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?”

Misty » 31 Jan 2017 10:00 am » wrote:Jeff Sessions to Sally Yates two years ago at her Senate confirmation hearing for deputy Attorney General.
Will Sessions be able to say no to 45?
I have very strong doubts.
And it is clear that 45 does not respect the independence of the DOJ.

45's statement after firing Yates reads in part:
She betrayed the DOJ?
She is weak on borders and very weak on illegal Immigration?
Then why did they ask her to stay on?

crimsongulf » 30 Jan 2017 8:39 pm » wrote:Marlo, do you have any ideas on saving this forum. it is peak time for folks that work and not a single post in 43 minutes.

Huey » 31 Jan 2017 10:11 am » wrote: That is the key word. What the President asked was not unlawful.

WASHINGTON – In a remarkable sign of early discord, Donald Trump's key Cabinet advisers — as well as Republican congressional leaders — distanced themselves Monday from the new president's controversial refugee and immigration ban.

They declared they were not consulted during its writing and were blindsided by the timing.

At least three top national security officials — Defense Secretary James Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department — have told associates they were not aware of details of directive until around the time Trump signed it.

Top intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials.

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said that despite White House assurances that congressional leaders were consulted, he learned about the order in the media.

The fallout was immediate: Friction between Trump and his top advisers and a rush by the Pentagon to seek exemptions to the policy. The White House approach also sparked an unusually public clash between a president and the civil servants tasked with carrying out his policy.

A large group of American diplomats circulated a memo voicing their opposition to the order, which temporarily halted the entire U.S. refugee program and banned all entries from seven Muslim-majority nations for 90 days.

In a startling combative response, White House spokesman Sean Spicer challenged those opposed to the measure to resign.

"They should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer said.

The blowback underscored Trump's tenuous relationship with his own national security advisers, many of whom he met for the first time during the transition, as well as with the government bureaucracy he now leads.

While Trump outlined his plan for temporarily halting entry to the U.S. from countries with terror ties during the campaign, the confusing way in which it finally was crafted stunned some who have joined his team.

Mattis, who stood next to Trump during Friday's signing ceremony, is said to be particularly incensed.

A senior U.S. official said Mattis, along with Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, was aware of the general concept of Trump's order but not the details.

Tillerson has told the president's political advisers that he was baffled over not being consulted on the substance of the order.

U.S. officials and others with knowledge of the Cabinet's thinking insisted on anonymity in order to disclose the officials' private views.

Trump's order pauses America's entire refugee program for four months and indefinitely bans all those from war-ravaged Syria.

Critics dispute the president's assertion that the policy is needed to keep Americans safe, noting that recent acts of extremist violence have been carried out either by U.S. citizens or by individuals whose families weren't from the nations singled out in the order.

The president has privately acknowledged flaws in the rollout, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.

But he's also blamed the media — his frequent target — for what he believes are reports exaggerating the dissent and the number of people actually affected.

Trump has also said he believes the voters who carried him to victory support the plan as a necessary step to safeguard the nation.

And he's dismissed objectors as attention-seeking rabble-rousers and grandstanding politicians.

After a chaotic weekend during which some U.S. legal permanent residents were detained at airports, some agencies were moving swiftly to try to clean up after the White House.

Homeland Security, the agency tasked with implementing much of the refugee ban, clarified that customs and border agents should allow legal residents to enter the country.

The Pentagon was trying to exempt Iraqis who worked alongside the U.S. and coalition forces from the 90-day ban on entry from the predominantly Muslim countries.

"There are a number of people in Iraq who have worked for us in a partnership role, whether fighting alongside us or working as translators, often doing so at great peril to themselves," said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

Policies with such broad reach are typically vetted by affected agencies and subject to review by multiple agencies. It's a process that can be frustratingly slow but is aimed at avoiding unintended consequences.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers in Trump's party sought to distance themselves from the wide-ranging order.

While Spicer said "appropriate committees and leadership offices" on Capitol Hill were consulted, GOP lawmakers said their offices had no hand in drafting the order and no briefings from the White House on how it would work.

"I think they know that it could have been done in a better way," Corker said of the White House.

The executive order was largely crafted by Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, and Stephen Miller, a young policy adviser and former congressional aide to Trump's pick for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions.

Spicer insisted the advisers had kept departments "in the loop at the level necessary," but he sidestepped questions about whether Cabinet secretaries were directly involved in the process.

Some Trump supporters defended the president, saying his actions should not have come as a surprise given his positions during the campaign.

"Nothing he did over the weekend was new," said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser.

He conceded that coordination could have been better, but he said Trump's vow to quickly bring change to Washington will sometimes mean he needs to prioritize fast action over broad consultation.

"If you're the reformer, you need the momentum," Gingrich said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/30/tr ... e-ban.html

Huey » 31 Jan 2017 6:01 am » wrote: Hi Misty. If this is a Muslim ban why is only one of the following countries on the list?

Misty » 31 Jan 2017 10:40 am » wrote: Really?
Has that been determined in any court?

The courts are likely to side with the president in cases where national security is involved but that hasn't happened yet.

Do you think that the courts will say that it was lawful to deny green card holders the right to re-enter the country?

Misty » 31 Jan 2017 11:00 am » wrote: I'll make a deal with you.
I'll stop calling it a Muslim ban if you admit that the way it was instituted was sloppy, incompetent and just plain wrong.