slugsrbad wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

td11 wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Hey y'all. IJM is collecting signatures for an online petition that urges Congress to appropriate the money that they promised to do in passing that bill a bunch of you called about last fall.

Here's the link if you are so inclined.

http://freedomcommons.ijm.org/action-al ... -name-line

signed

thanks for posting cal

I signed too, I didn't really read it too closely last night, but did it automatically email a script to my Senators?

thanks! (you too td!)

the goal is 100k signatures that will ultimately just be circulated to congress in the spring when all that money stuff starts to get decided.

Hm. I got an email from Sen. Casey's email thanking me for the email and to expect a response... I don't remember emailing him on my own.

i got one of those too actually... i was not told thats what would happen. hmm. i will ask, but seems you may be right.

sent a fax to as many of toomeys offices as i could tell him to vote no on devoss and a few others.

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:if you're Sasse, Flake, McCain, Graham, Corker, Collins, Portman, maybe Heller, if you have any particle of affection remaining for your nation & its reputation - to say nothing of your own - you've gotta be wondering how much longer you can grin & bear it

All thru the primaries and then especially after Mein Dope won the nomination, I kept expecting that there were some actual patriots in the GOP who would stand up and say "no way" can we support this idiot. Hats off to Mitt and the Bushes - but every office holder with few exceptions has been a self-serving coward.

Does not give me hope that they will develop a spine, absent a miracle from Lenny Belardo

TPie, it is heartening to find you & Jerz & some others finding nothing to celebrate in drumpfco's irruption.

I'm way too frequently rude & intemperate in my distaste for exclusionary politics & those who (intentionally or not) espouse them.

Have I been harsh, uncivil, juvenile, even sometimes incorrect in expressing my hostility to complaisance towards, complicity with, policies and political actors whose impulses favor everyone looking up, instead of looking around, for the essence of our brand of governance? Guilty as charged. To you, and jerz, and gr, and, really, everybody, I'm sorry. I'm sorry all over again.

It's just that, when you really get down to it, no American wants any of that former thing. And it's so easy to behave as if "that will be ok, because I'll be ok". No; no, you won't.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:A quick thought or two about the Yates firing.

I am in favor of it.

My opinion is that you don't want Executive Branch bureaucrats - regardless of what "rank" or status they possess - becoming the sole determiner of national policy or law. The Executive Branch bureaucracy is already a shadow fourth branch of our Federal government, and within that framework, precedent matters a great deal.

So in the future, if a new Democratic President had an acting Republican AG who acted in the same manner as Yates, I would fully the firing of the AG for the same exact reason as I stated above.

Yates' decision plays well within the political arena if one is against Trump. From a process and precedent perspective, Trump had no choice.

I defer to your wisdom on a lot of things that are just outside of my ken, but I disagree with your assertion of the Attorney General's role. Their duties, among others, are to represent the US in legal matters and to furnish advice and opinions on legal matters, as provided by law. If the Attorney General feels that a federal law is unconstitutional, then it is well within their purview to write a memo regarding that issue.

As it has been stated previously, the AG serves at the pleasure of the President. It has also been argued (mainly by Jack Goldsmith of Lawfare blog, posted by JH) that the AG did not make the case that the EO was illegal or that there were no reasonable defenses to the legality. This may be true, but I think that merely shifts the argument from Yates was well within her bounds, to Yates was well within her bounds to argue its legality, but failed to do so.

What this does truly boil down to is the incompetency of the Trump administration. Yates was to serve probably less than a week more until the feet dragging on Sessions ended. Instead, he passed this questionable EO with very little input from his advisors and relevant congresspeople, and passed it while there was an AG that was not of his choosing. Yates got to be a martyr for the left, and Trump once again looked incompetent.

they didn't consult the lawyers before issuing the EO. Perhaps if Trump & company respected the power of the presidency and respected the process of governance none of this would've happened.

Slowhand wrote:

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

This is sickening and frightening.

This administration has a funny way of uniting people.

And they want to be my latex salesmen::

The work of the committee aides began during the transition period after the election and before Donald Trump was sworn in. The staffers signed nondisclosure agreements, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Trump's transition operation forced its staff to sign these agreements, but it would be unusual to extend that requirement to congressional employees. Rexrode declined to comment on the nondisclosure pacts.

It’s extremely rare for administration officials to circumvent Republican leadership and work directly with congressional committee aides. But the House Judiciary Committee has some of the most experienced staffers when it comes to immigration policy.

GOP leaders received no advance warning or briefings from the White House or Judiciary staff on what the executive order would do or how it would be implemented — briefings they still had not received as of Sunday night. Leaders including Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only saw the final language when reporters received it Friday night, according to multiple Hill sources.

Rather, Republicans on the Hill spent the entire weekend scrambling to find out what was going on, who was involved and how it was that they were caught so flat-footed.

Since the staffers did not inform Republican leaders about their work, Hill leaders and the House Homeland Security panels were never given the chance to vet the order for potential problems — such as the issue with green card holders that caused authorized U.S. immigrants to be threatened with deportation at airports.

White House slap at dissenting diplomats sparks fear of reprisal. Even supporters of the administration believe the administration erred in its lack of communication. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally, speculated that the administration could have given "people a heads up a week or so out and get them on the same page.” But he cautioned that the administration is “understaffed and Trump is impatient,” and the White House has a natural learning curve.

what a great quality in a president, impatience.

There's no question that there is a major problem with the sequencing of all these events.

I don't think they care. They are sprinting from one EO to another, and it's making focus impossible. today the outrage will be on the Supreme Court nominee and how he or she is the spawn of Lucifer and wants to eat souls. Tomorrow it will be another subject. The Dems and media are falling right into his trap - they are going to exhaust themselves with outrage over relatively minor issues, and when a substantial issue comes down the pike in 10-14 days, there won't be any energy left to fight. I think the admin is pursuing a classic exhaustion strategy here, and when they sense that the Dems/media are close to exhaustion, they will conducted a strategic maneuver that is completely decisive for their cause/support.

I see two possible outcomes here: either the press gets overwhelmed by the pace and depth of the administration's speed and collapses under the weight, or the administration finally does something so out of the norm that it backfires badly against them and they take a legitimate shot to the face from their base.

As far as Yates, the onus was on her to describe and sell the case to the administration why this EO was unconstitutional. She failed and then made it a political event. Her choice. Bad precedent for all of us. Forced Trump into a corner. She may have won the battle but we probably lost the war.

The real problem, and I don't see any discussion about this at all from any political angle, is that the powers assigned to the Chief Executive have become way too strong. They were too strong under GWB, increased under Obama, and we are living within those spoils from the current administration.

In many ways, I wish Trump would give up a lot of the Chief Executive power and reduce a hefty portion of the Executive Branch bureaucracy.

Congressional Republicans can end this tomorrow if they want.

slugsrbad wrote:
What this does truly boil down to is the incompetency of the Trump administration.

Yeah. Plenty of ways to handle this without drumpfco's hyperbolic overreaction. Underscores that drumpf has basically no leadership skills. Imagine when something big happens.

You know that's not going to happen.

Come on.

pacino wrote:Congressional Republicans can end this tomorrow if they want.

drsmooth wrote:Have I been harsh, uncivil, juvenile, even sometimes incorrect in expressing my hostility to complaisance towards, complicity with, policies and political actors whose impulses favor everyone looking up, instead of looking around, for the essence of our brand of governance? Guilty as charged. To you, and jerz, and gr, and, really, everybody, I'm sorry. I'm sorry all over again.

Without getting too verklempt, I was never offended by your diatribes because I sensed that you are more interested in a dialogue than in simply trashing those with differing views. You're angry, not smug. You argue instead of dismiss.

You're a role model for impassioned lefties.

Once we get past this Vermin in chief, you can resume castigating me for voting for Rubio over Booker in 2020.

I disagree with your characterization of the travel ban as a minor issue, LG.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:You know that's not going to happen.

Come on.

pacino wrote:Congressional Republicans can end this tomorrow if they want.

I'm just telling you the actual solution to all this. They want their tax cuts for rich people and to go after people's health insurance so this won't happen. but it could. to put this on the democrats or the media as having to perfect some A+ strategy to combat Trump misses the larger point. The Republican Party hoisted this BS on us and now we all have to suffer while they sit back and twiddle their goddamn thumbs. I also think that scapegoating people is a huge issue.

Also, Seth Moulton is going to be a star. That guy is awesome.

Cal, just signed the form and also just received the Casey email

LG, is Bannon going to be giving assassination orders now?

http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/index.html

Go tell Fox news what you think of the Orange Buffoon

TomatoPie wrote:http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/index.html

Go tell Fox news what you think of the Orange Buffoon

Some of those questions were really poorly worded. For example:

Q: White House puts media on notice: Did they cross the line? Yes or No

Is "they" the White House or the media? Now, since it is Fox, I know we are supposed to be questioning whether or not the media crossed the line but not everybody wears red-colored glasses.

Luzinski's Gut wrote: they are going to exhaust themselves with outrage over relatively minor issues, and when a substantial issue comes down the pike in 10-14 days, there won't be any energy left to fight.

wow, not really feeling that

I see two possible outcomes here: either the press gets overwhelmed by the pace and depth of the administration's speed and collapses under the weight, or the administration finally does something so out of the norm that it backfires badly against them and they take a legitimate shot to the face from their base.

Ok, LG, so you've got to weight these 2 outcomes for their likelihood. We're about 10 days into the drumpfco regime. Thousands of people just show up, every night, across the country, to protest drumpf's (I guess you're calling them minor) daily irrational outbursts. Which event is most likely to happen first? My money's on the 2nd.

As far as Yates, the onus was on her to describe and sell the case to the administration why this EO was unconstitutional. She failed and then made it a political event. Her choice. Bad precedent for all of us. Forced Trump into a corner.

No. Plenty of ways to just go around her for the 2-ish days she's actually gonna occupy the role. He made a mountain out of a molehill. Bad precedent for him. Is this how he now must react to any perceived "insubordination"? Whoa, Nelly

The real problem, and I don't see any discussion about this at all from any political angle, is that the powers assigned to the Chief Executive have become way too strong. They were too strong under GWB, increased under Obama, and we are living within those spoils from the current administration.

My memory's probably faulty but I guess this never came up in the era of Johnson, or Nixon....[/quote]