This is decrimating against southern heritage that doesn't desrve to be discriminated against. Southern Americans have done anything to deserve the disrespect of our ancestors. While you continue to discriminate against the heritage they were charged to defend. Black white cherokee and otherwise!
I agree with you that AGs should not blindly follow a president. I take exception in the way in which she chose to act upon that disagreement.
This AG, temporarily appointed by Obama, called an immediate press conference to announce her public opposition to an EO that she had just received. This was a purely a case of grandstanding as she neither had the time to consultant with federal judges on the question of the EO's constitutionality nor followed the standard procedure that AGs engage in in disagreeing with their boss in the executive branch. i.e. a private consultation prior to any public announcement. The AG serves at the discretion of the president, he can fire her whether she agrees with him or not regardless of the subject.
But she scored the points she wanted and now she can expect to be rewarded with a job from Democrat donors, which she was going to need anyway in the next week.
Don't confuse political theater with virtue or deliberate legal review.
The AG is supposed to question- that's part of the job. The AG should not blindly follow the president nor should anyone else.
"fits your worldview"
More deflection and all his from some who feels free to calls anyone who disagree with him on national security priorities a coward, stupid, crazy, or a fascist.
Rant on alone in your mom's basement.
Google "Trump and Intelligence Community." Clearly any source I post is part of a liberal conspiracy, so maybe you can find one in Google that fits your worldview. Oh wait, Google is against the ban too. So any search results they generate are suspect, right?
The fired AG was an temporary appointed Obama apparatchik due to leave when Sessions got confirmed. A temporary AG is not the arbitrator of what is constitutional or not, that's what a federal judge determines.
If you refuse as a government official to care out the law you get dismissed. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to enforce. I don't remember you whining about Obama firing Bush appointees when he took office and nor your support of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis when she was violating her oath of office by refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays.
Hypocrisy, meet thyself.
Having grown up in Clearwater, PolitiFac, operated by the left leaning Tampa Bay Times is far from a legitimate nonpartisan source. A quick google of their records of twisting facts might open your eyes.
"The news is full of legitimate sources citing the chaos inside the administration."
More like newspapers looking to sell more newspapers. And what exactly does this have to do with my request for you to back up your claim that that the administration is currently ignoring governmental intel on making this current decision on the temporary ban?
I asked for a source, you failed, but I see you've already gone back to deflection and name calling. Your going to have a long four years, at least you can rant here.
"You clearly wouldn't support anything Trump would do".
I support this:
Politifact is nonpartisan, and I've given you several facts that aren't merely my opinion. The news is full of legitimate sources citing the chaos inside the administration. But it doesn't matter. We have alternative facts now and you are free to remain in denial.
Conceivable they can be added. Obviously those countries have been the source of terrorists in the past (15 years ago). Six of those listed now reflect where Al Qaeda and ISIS are strongest in 2016, many were they hold territory and have access to passport manufacturing capabilities. - I'm leaving out Iran as it has separate security issues. - I've been told by friends in the immigration department that since the whole governmental structure has broken down in Syria, Somalia and Libya that it's difficult to know what know what is or what is not authentic documents.
Why is Saudi Arabia and Egypt not included in the ban if the goal is to protect Americans from terrorist?
Your personal opinion about what Intel is being currently listened to and used to determine why the ban (a temporary 90 day ban at that) was put in place is just that and nothing more. What is your source for all this insider information?....Rachel Maddow? Chris Matthews? Cite a non-partisan source that this administration is not using current Intel to make these decisions.
You clearly wouldn't support anything Trump would do as you cavalierly throw around leftist ad hominem attack points...."dictator", "fascism", "Cowards, all of you who support this", "Not being able to come to terms with reality" i.e. crazy and the old, your not a patriot because argument - "You cannot possibly claim to love this country and what it stands for and support these dangerous men".
Spare us your "irrational" hysterics,and back up your points with facts for once.
"the rest of us will support the people who have the intel"
That is one of the points - the Trump administration is not listening to the people with the intel! Look at the unprecedented shakeup with putting Bannon on the NSC and removing the Director of Intellgience and the Joint Chiefs Chair. He is ignoring his own intelligence community. How can you be so obtuse?
Not being able to come to terms with reality doesn't make every argument against you a straw man.
Meanwhile Trump just fires whomever doesn't give him the answer he wants when the current AG said she would not defend the executive order because it did not stand constitutional muster. Jeff Sessions, Trump's very own pick for AG suggested that no one should buckle to Trump, but what are you to do if you are just going to get fired for it. Double standard, convenient hypocrisy or dictatorship?
Again another straw man, seems to be all you can ever come up with.
It not "irrational" nor "authoritarianism" to secure our borders and implement a proactive defense particularly when dealing with failed terrorist harboring states which these seven are. Experiment with your own life and safety, the rest of us will support the people who have the intel to determine what the risk factors are and are willing to act accordingly.
If you're not Native American, you need to go back where your ancestors came from because immigrants tyrannically invaded and took over their lands.
I suppose it's also anecdotal that no one from any of the countries under the ban has killed American citizens, but the vast majority of terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11 have been by American citizens. It's also anecdotal you are more likely to be killed by a car than killed by a terrorist.
You are defending authoritarianism, plain and simple, because you're irrationally frightened. This is not going to make any of us safer, and it's tragic you think it will.
Throwing around anecdotal evidence of those who are legitimate refugees (children) to support your straw man argument glaringly overlooks that terrorists have already infiltrated the west blending in with refugees. The attacks in Paris proved that. A 90 day temporarily ban to reassess the current vetting system seem reasonable.
Name calling those who are legitimately concerned about the safety of all Americans cowards, is not only pathetic but indicates you'd happily sacrifice American lives on the altar of political correctness.
Land of the free, home of the brave.
This is what Trump is protecting us from:
Cowards, all of you who support this.
Not that facts matter to Trump or his supporters: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st…
Obama went through the proper legal channels as well and consulted with the State Department and DHS on carrying out the order, which, if you take five minutes to research it, is not the same as Trump's decree at all.
To Trump supporters, I ask this: Even if you agree with the ban, how can you support the way it is being carried out? We just heard for eight years how executive orders are the sign of a dictator. Or does that only apply when black presidents who are Democrats sign them?
This ban is the brainchild of a self-proclaimed white nationalist (Bannon) who went on record saying the wanted to destroy the state by sewing chaos. It was not vetted by Trump's legal team, DHS, or the State Department. No one on the administration is on the same page, and now Trump and Bannon are working to silence the dissenters. That is not democracy. That is fascism. You cannot possibly claim to love this country and what it stands for and support these dangerous men.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper