brandymac27 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 ^^^Pretty much sums up most of America right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 33 minutes ago, visionary said: Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia? He's the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (one US attorney for each Federal District. Some states like Virginia has multiple Federal Districts, other states only have one). Boente should be ashamed of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Holy ****. Edited January 31, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 i've heard/read a couple solid legal professors who challenge her legal basis for denial of enforcement (arguments credible to my laymans eye) and are opining that it was really the morality clause/aspect of it---discriminatory nature--that drove her...not partisan politics...some are making good arguments that she should have handled it by going to trump & co first and talk about it (we don't know if she tired in any way or not, it's being assumed "not") and that going public was really out of the norm and questionable...pushback would be "do you think it would have mattered if she did?"... other point of interest new guy was senate confirmed in past as one kind of legal eagle but not as AG which requires senate confirmation...so it's unclear (to some at least) if he can start right away......and this guy needs to sign **** daily like she did, esp. on security stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 48 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: Here's another perspective on the whole immigration EO fiasco that's on the more sinister end of the spectrum. The EO was in part about testing loyalty: I'm inclined to take incompetence and recklessness over a well thought out sinister plot to test the loyalty of dhs and cut the legs out from the judiciary. Still, not a fun idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, visionary said: Holy ****. Is this for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Llevron said: Is this for real? It's a legit source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I haven't seen it elsewhere yet, but they are pretty fast at getting stuff and usually reliable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, tshile said: I'm inclined to take incompetence and recklessness over a well thought out sinister plot to test the loyalty of dhs and cut the legs out from the judiciary. Still, not a fun idea... It may not be reassuring to you that I came across the link only because a friend shared it on social media. This friend is the spouse of someone who is very well connected in the army and this is not the kind of thing I've seen this person share before. Edited January 31, 2017 by Corcaigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 So, not sure where to put this, but I was reading up on executive ordered just now... expecting Obama to have some huge number of EO's. Nope. Lowest number of EO's of any 2 term president since before FDR, lower than some one term presidents. Just a surprising fact considering how much of a raging socialist Obama was. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, tshile said: I'm inclined to take incompetence and recklessness over a well thought out sinister plot to test the loyalty of dhs and cut the legs out from the judiciary. Still, not a fun idea... Bannon knows what he's doing. Trump is his puppet at this point. Trump would be busy jacking off to himself in the WH bathroom for the next month if Bannon wasn't there. Bannon knows how to orchestrate a shock and awe political strategy, and we're seeing it in action. He wants us to think this is incompetence from an outsider, because it blinds us to the sneaking malice within. Remember, Steve Bannon was the guy who personally overruled DHS on Green Card holders. Trump probably doesn't know what the difference between the various groups is and would have listened to a DHS person of authority if left alone with them. Bannon jumped in as the middle man and made sure chaos reigned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I know I said I wasn't going to post again for a while, but this is too important not to share. From my FB feed. THE SHOCK EVENT From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College: "I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today. What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event." Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event. Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it. Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot. My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like. I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal. But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event. A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union. If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power. Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it." 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Edited January 31, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: It may not be reassuring to you that I came across the link only because a friend shared it on social media. This friend is the spouse of someone who is very well connected in the army and this is not the kind of thing I've seen this person share before. I need to find a rainbow and some unicorns. Or maybe just a fuzy wall to rub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I don't know if this has appeared on the thread, if so let me know and I'll delete. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Immigration Director Ragsdale got fired, but CNN isn't even talking about it. Their focus is on the AG getting fired. I am thinking that they used the firing of the AG to suppress the media from talking about the firing of the Immigration Director. It may be more important. The AG was being replaced anyway. The media is basically focused on the AG story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Squirrel! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 26 minutes ago, Springfield said: So, not sure where to put this, but I was reading up on executive ordered just now... expecting Obama to have some huge number of EO's. Nope. Lowest number of EO's of any 2 term president since before FDR, lower than some one term presidents. Just a surprising fact considering how much of a raging socialist Obama was. Have you read up on them? They're thoughtful but ultimately I don't think there was any policy adjustments via the EO's. Just suggestions on things. Remember when the right was going nuts about the EO's and guns? It was a bunch of research and 'please consider gun control measure congress' stuff. I liked it, but the left critized him for doing nothing (that's actually how they describe it) and the right was going on about gun confiscation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, tshile said: Have you read up on them? They're thoughtful but ultimately I don't think there was any policy adjustments via the EO's. Just suggestions on things. Remember when the right was going nuts about the EO's and guns? It was a bunch of research and 'please consider gun control measure congress' stuff. I liked it, but the left critized him for doing nothing (that's actually how they describe it) and the right was going on about gun confiscation Didn't know any of that. Funny how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Also worth noting, it's not like Obama didnt ever tip toe the line of legality and authority. The aca mandate/tax was messy for them, though ultimately just a wording change They killed a us citizen with an ordered drone strike overseas. There are other things tangential to the comparison here. No, it's not a false equivalency. I'm not comparing Obama's moves to trumps to justify or excuse anything, I just think it is worth keeping in mind while trying to sift through whatever this is. It's also hard to take criticism from Bush admin officials seriously. If that wasn't a puppet with puppet masters situation I don't know what is. I think it changed towards the end but for a while there it wasn't all that great of a situation. Edited January 31, 2017 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Edited January 31, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now