Jump to content

The anti-Trump resistance takes shape: 'Government's supposed to fear us'


webfact

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

The President sets the number of refugees from the overall number of people allowed to immigrate to the US.    Cutting the number of refugees will allow for more in the other visa categories.  

 

The prevailing attitude toward refugees is more on the negative side at this time.   I think the prevailing negative attitude comes from a variety of issues, including the world watching the influx into Europe as well as strong rhetoric during the campaign.  

I was talking to the likely outcome of Trump's decision entailing cutting Christian refugee intake. An outcome which would not be a desired by Christian groups supporting Trump. Shot in the foot etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To date, I don't believe that Christians will be at any greater disadvantage than any other group.   I don't think religion is taken into account in admitting refugees--at least no particular religion is 'banned'.    Certain practices by certain religions may preclude resettlement, such as multiple marriages.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Trump has unilaterally cut refugees intake by 50k p.a., so currently 50k vetted refugees are permitted entry p.a. I would assume US vetted refugee intake is similar to Australia where the majority of refugees permitted entry are Christian, so kind of cutting off your nose, to spite your face.

Not sure about religion, but last time I looked at this, a majority of the refugees were women, children and people at risk.  Great job Trump!  Congrats.

 

The ruling has created more legal confusion:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/trump-travel-ban-decision/index.html
 

Quote

 

"In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO--2."

........

What's less clear -- at least to me -- is what a "bona fide relationship" means. Is that blood connection? Close friend? And who decides what a "credible" claim of a "bona fide" relationship is?

 

 

This administration is wasting our precious resources on stuff like this.  And in the end, will do little to help protect our country.  But hey, his supporters love it and he did beat Hillary. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Not sure about religion, but last time I looked at this, a majority of the refugees were women, children and people at risk.  Great job Trump!  Congrats.

 

The ruling has created more legal confusion:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/trump-travel-ban-decision/index.html
 

 

This administration is wasting our precious resources on stuff like this.  And in the end, will do little to help protect our country.  But hey, his supporters love it and he did beat Hillary. LOL

It was not the Trump administration who dragged it through the courts. Blame the resist and block everything Trump brigade, and the lefty judges who were looking to be heroes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PattayaJames said:

It was not the Trump administration who dragged it through the courts. Blame the resist and block everything Trump brigade, and the lefty judges who were looking to be heroes.

You are right.  It was Trump who drafted a lousy EO without proper vetting and that's potentially a violation of the US constitution.  Can't blame others for that, though they seem to try.

 

Lefty judges?  Seriously? LOL

 

Time will tell if this terrible EO is cancelled, left to stand, or modified.  You are aware the court did make a modification to it?  More lefty judges? :cheesy:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

Nope. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has been saved.

And another Trump lifetime appointment likely to come soon. 

Now that is a Trump win!

MAGA

Good for Trump!  That's what, 3 wins now versus how many loses?  Amazing you call this a win.  It's a terrible EO.  Sadly, Trump supporters don't seem to see that.  Though the majority of Americans do.  Luckily!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, so much for making America great again.  Trump hurts us...again.

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/

U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership

Quote

According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. This stands in contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64% expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor to direct America’s role in the world.

 

Ouch, this has to hurt! LOL

Quote

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin also get poor marks, though neither is rated as negatively as the U.S. president.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, heybruce said:

He doubled the admission fee to Mar-a-Lago after the election, from $100,000 to $200,000, then called it the "Winter Whitehouse".  I'm sure that has more than off-set the "sacrifice" of the president's salary.

 

It would be very interesting to see who joined Mar-a-Lago after he doubled the fee.  However Trump defies tradition and won't release tax returns, won't put his businesses in a blind trust, won't make White House visitor logs public and won't tell us which cabinet members needed waivers for conflicts of interest and what these waivers covered.  It's safe to assume we won't learn who joined Mar-a-Lago, at least not without a long court battle.

 

6 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

OK, but does foregoing the Presidential salary not qualify???   That was the question.

 

There are some masters at deflection here, but you have to be right up there. 

Forgoing the salary is a deflection, the salary is tiny compared to the money he's making by abusing the office of the presidency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

Nope. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has been saved.

And another Trump lifetime appointment likely to come soon. 

Now that is a Trump win!

MAGA

So much for a Trump win.  Let's not forget this isn't the ban Trump wanted in place.  It's the watered down one.  The one he calls "politically correct".

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/27/opinions/trump-travel-ban-sc-pate-opinion/index.html

 

Quote

 

'Clear victory' on travel ban? Not quite

The harmful and direct impact of the revised travel ban was so obvious to a majority of the Justices that they stayed a significant part of the measure as soon as they agreed to accept the case. That's a loss for the Trump administration, no matter how the White House may try to spin it.

........

It doesn't fully reinstate the travel ban.

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

Quote

Supreme Court allows parts of travel ban to take effect

 

"Who is going to make this decision? If we leave it to the folks on the front line, that's just going to lead to more litigation."

Great job providing more cases for lawyers to file.  The lawyers lobbyist group must be loving this.

 

MAGA. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 6/27/2017 at 11:02 AM, PattayaJames said:
On 6/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, craigt3365 said:

More lefty judges? :cheesy:

Nope. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has been saved.

And another Trump lifetime appointment likely to come soon. 

Now that is a Trump win!

MAGA

Sorry if this was not clear, to you.

I was referring to the to the SCOTUS appointments.

1 down (Neil Gorsuch), and at least 1, possibly 2 more to come.

Which will change the direction of the SCOTUS for decades.

 

As to the travel ban, much a do about not a lot. The main thing is that the decision affirms the Presidents authority, and clearly puts the lefty lower court judges in their place. No, they cannot just try to block stuff cos they don't like Trump!

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

 

Sorry if this was not clear, to you.

I was referring to the to the SCOTUS appointments.

1 down (Neil Gorsuch), and at least 1, possibly 2 more to come.

Which will change the direction of the SCOTUS for decades.

 

As to the travel ban, much a do about not a lot. The main thing is that the decision affirms the Presidents authority, and clearly puts the lefty lower court judges in their place. No, they cannot just try to block stuff cos they don't like Trump!

Understood completely.  As for the judges, seems to be some good news.  Thanks to Trump! LOL

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-monday/index.html

Quote

Travel ban, religious liberty cases could keep swing vote Kennedy around

 

You are right, the travel ban has always been much ado about not a lot.  Not sure why Trump pursued it so aggressively.  He backed off on so many other promises. LOL

 

Please, understand, this isn't because they don't like Trump.  It's because the original ban potentially violated the constitution.  Big mistake on Trump's part and a huge FAIL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

 

Sorry if this was not clear, to you.

I was referring to the to the SCOTUS appointments.

1 down (Neil Gorsuch), and at least 1, possibly 2 more to come.

Which will change the direction of the SCOTUS for decades.

 

As to the travel ban, much a do about not a lot. The main thing is that the decision affirms the Presidents authority, and clearly puts the lefty lower court judges in their place. No, they cannot just try to block stuff cos they don't like Trump!

Gorsuch may be a win for Trump, but for the white working class he is nothing short of a disaster. There's a well known case where a trucker faced possibly freezing to death waiting for a repair crew to come and look at his rig or leaving the rig and getting shelter. Finally he chose to find shelter. The company fired him for violating policy. Gorsuch ruled that the company had the right to do so. Fortunately all the other judges, including conservative ones, ruled in favor of the worker. Give Trump time, though, and the Supreme Court will be filled with defenders of corporate america.

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202781824025/Lawyers-in-Gorsuch-Frozen-Trucker-Case-Surprised-at-Attention?slreturn=20170528062657

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...