Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:12 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
Annachie wrote:They actually admitted to not showing the immugration EO to the OGE or the AG, the two legal departments in the White House whose job it is, in part, is to say if an EO is legal or not.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


I can see Sally Yates giving an honest opinion. She refused to defend the EO when it was her job was to defend the EO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps


What was that you were saying her job was?

(Please note who that is questioning Yates during her confirmation in 2015. Of course that was when the president he expected the AG to say no to was Obama...)
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:30 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

gcomeau wrote:
PeterZ wrote:
I can see Sally Yates giving an honest opinion. She refused to defend the EO when it was her job was to defend the EO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps


What was that you were saying her job was?

(Please note who that is questioning Yates during her confirmation in 2015. Of course that was when the president he expected the AG to say no to was Obama...)


Proves my point good buddy. She wasn't going to support it, not because she was correct in her belief of the legality of the EO, but because she already believed it was illegal.

Why ask her if you believe that she is wrong to believe as she does? I am not impugning her by the way. She has the right to hold that belief, but that doesn't make her right.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:47 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
gcomeau wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps


What was that you were saying her job was?

(Please note who that is questioning Yates during her confirmation in 2015. Of course that was when the president he expected the AG to say no to was Obama...)


Proves my point good buddy.


How in the world does the incoming AG being on record saying it is NOT the AGs job to just defend the legality of anything the President tries to do... and to tell the President "No" when he tries to do something illegal... prove your point that it was her job to defend the legality of what Trump was trying to do when it was her official opinion that the EO was not legal????


She wasn't going to support it, not because she was correct in her belief of the legality of the EO, but because she already believed it was illegal.


The courts have sided with her opinion so far on that legality question. What is your extensive background in law that makes you more of a subject matter expert on it than the previous United States Attorney General AND multiple Federal Judges?


She believed it was illegal based on it, you know, violated the law.


Why ask her if you believe that she is wrong to believe as she does?



Why ask the subject matter expert for their input on the subject they are the expert on who is employed specifically to provide you with the services of said expertise when you (person with no training in said subject *whatsoever*) are going to disagree with their feedback on it?


Because she's the Attorney General with a lifetime of legal experience whose job it actually IS (among other things) to advise the President on things like whether his EOs are legal or not...and Trump is Trump... who knows not a damn thing about the law.



Did you *really* need me to answer that question?
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Eyal   » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:05 am

Eyal
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:09 pm
Location: Israel

PeterZ wrote:I can see Sally Yates giving an honest opinion. She refused to defend the EO when it was her job was to defend the EO and let the Circuit Court decide on the merits. What makes anyone think her opinion would have been different if an EO worded differently was presented to her limiting travel to those countries?


What you're basically arguing is that since she believed the EO as written was illegal and therefore refused to defend it, she would also refuse to defend an EO written differently - presumably phrased so as to be legal? How does that follow?

Also, how is what she did not giving an honest opinion? Would maintaining the EO was legal even though she believed it was illegal be more honest?
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by PeterZ   » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:43 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Eyal wrote:
PeterZ wrote:I can see Sally Yates giving an honest opinion. She refused to defend the EO when it was her job was to defend the EO and let the Circuit Court decide on the merits. What makes anyone think her opinion would have been different if an EO worded differently was presented to her limiting travel to those countries?


What you're basically arguing is that since she believed the EO as written was illegal and therefore refused to defend it, she would also refuse to defend an EO written differently - presumably phrased so as to be legal? How does that follow?

Also, how is what she did not giving an honest opinion? Would maintaining the EO was legal even though she believed it was illegal be more honest?


As sometimes happens my choice of words was poor. I don't believe the phrasing to be illegal. The 9th Circuit and Sally Yates disagrees. If it turns out that SCOTUS upholds the EO, then Sally yates and the 9th Circuit was wrong. Until then the stay holds. Asking her would have changed nothing. The Administration believes they are right and would have continued regardless.

It remains doubtful that the President avoided Yates opinion, it simply would not change his opinion on the matter.

I suspect that Yates' honest opinion is that any targeted travel and immigration ban is illegal. So any similar EO would have been deemed to be illegal, regardless of how its worded.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Starsaber   » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:24 pm

Starsaber
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:40 am

PeterZ wrote:
Annachie wrote:They actually admitted to not showing the immugration EO to the OGE or the AG, the two legal departments in the White House whose job it is, in part, is to say if an EO is legal or not.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


I can see Sally Yates giving an honest opinion. She refused to defend the EO when it was her job was to defend the EO and let the Circuit Court decide on the merits. What makes anyone think her opinion would have been different if an EO worded differently was presented to her limiting travel to those countries?


She probably would have at least said which aspects of it were questionable, allowing the writers of the Executive Order to clarify them so the confusion of the first weekend and court challenges to the final version of the order would have been less likely.

That's my biggest problem with President Trump, he doesn't seem to accept the possibility that people could disagree with him in good faith as opposed to as part of an agenda.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Annachie   » Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:45 pm

Annachie
Admiral

Posts: 2710
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Pres. Trump didn't even run it past the White House Counsel, whose job it is, specifically among other things, to advise the President on the legality of Executive Orders.

Though in this case the person holding the office appears to be drasticly under qualified.

Or perhaps perfectly qualified for what Pres. Trump plans to do.

Campaign finance law.

(I may have refered to OGC before. Office of General Counsel is the more normal name for the office that is the White House Counsel My oops)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:11 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

cthia wrote:There's actual betting on Trump's likely impeachment.


Ah, betting is something you can do on almost anything since the arrival of webbased betting.

I made good money from betting that GWB would start at least 1 war if he became president.

How can Trump effectively carry out his duties having to fight at every turn against his own country. If he really cares about the country, perhaps he should resign.


:shock:

He´s waaaayyy too egocentric to even consider such an unthinkable act, not to mention lacking in integrity. Along with far too many of his bigwig "supporters".
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Annachie   » Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:35 am

Annachie
Admiral

Posts: 2710
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Hell, Australians bet on boat races conducted on a dry river bed. :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by biochem   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:48 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: USA

biochem wrote:
PeterZ wrote:
Ok, what makes these polls more accurate than the polls leading to the election?


They're not. Trump's approval rating during the primaries and most of the campaign was within error of this number. It's been higher than that post-election but it's back now to where it normally has been. He was the first presidential candidate to win with a net negative rating (more people disliked him than liked him), even most of the people who voted FOR him didn't actually like him.

The polls keep asking the wrong questions, they keep asking the national approval rating. But frankly it doesn't matter whether 90% of the people in San Francisco hate him or 99% do.

The tracking poll that I want to see (that would be actually useful) is his approval rating among people who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012 and voted for Trump in 2016. Preferably in the Rust Belt region. And I want to see it week by week. Is that approval rating trending down or is it trending up?

This would tell me the impact of his current actions on the key swing voters who got him elected. If those voters are trending toward disapprove he's in trouble.

Unless the pollsters start providing useful data, they're going to find themselves with egg on their face in 2020 again

Incidentally on the very very rare occasions when a useful poll is conducted, Trump is maintaining support among the people who matter.



Finally someone is doing the obvious and measuring this! So we may actually be getting some useful information for once

https://ballotpedia.org/Scott_Rasmussen ... h_20,_2017
Top

Return to Politics